SPECIAL EDITION: The DEFINITIVE Debunking of the Left’s Gun Myths

Charlie Sheen is an icon of decadence.

I lit the fuse and my life turns into everything it wasn't supposed to be.

He's going the distance.

He was the highest paid TV star of all time.

When it started to change, it was quick.

He kept saying, No, no, no, I'm in the hospital now, but next week I'll be ready for the show.

Now, Charlie's sober.

He's gonna tell you the truth.

How do I present this with any class?

I think we're past that, Charlie.

We're past that, yeah.

Somebody call action.

Yeah, aka Charlie Sheen, only on Netflix, September 10th.

Hey, it's Glenn.

We've seen how the left uses every tragic event to try to infringe on our Second Amendment right.

The same people bring up the same myths about guns over and over again, and we have to set the record straight.

So, Blaise has developed a special for this episode of Stu Does America.

It is the definitive debunking of the left's gun myths.

Now, if you know Stu from the radio show, you know he loves to take the scalpel to nonsense of the left, and he does it every day on his podcast and on my radio show.

But I want you to take a minute now and click over to his podcast and follow Stu Does America for new episodes every weekday, or click the link in the show notes.

Stu DoesAmerica.

Welcome to our special program, Stu Debunks Gun Myths.

If you think telling the truth is important, please support us by subscribing to Blaze TV at blazetv.com slash stew.

Use the special promo code debunked right now to save 20 bucks off your subscription.

And you can follow the podcast or the YouTube channel and support us for free.

We really would appreciate it.

Last week, I was walking through my kitchen when I got a news alert on my phone.

It read, there has been a mass shooting at an elementary school.

in Texas.

And when you saw that, you probably felt sad and angry and felt empathy for the victims.

But I felt a little different.

I felt scared.

At that moment, I had two kids at an elementary school in Texas.

Now, while rationally I knew the odds of our school being affected were low, you can't help but have that moment where your heart skips a beat.

I mean, it's just natural.

And no parent should have to go through that.

The left wants to paint us as heartless monsters, but that's not true.

We hate gun violence just as much or more than the left does.

We not only grieve for the victims, but we also see the rights that have protected the nation's freedoms withering away.

And we also know what comes next.

It's understandable to feel emotion after what we saw in Texas.

Emotion comes naturally.

It's easy.

to prey on people's emotions to try to push through an agenda.

Never let a crisis go to waste, after all.

And some of the lowest forms of humanity will even try to exploit this tragedy for their own personal benefit.

But I don't want to be Beto O'Rourke.

I want to do what does not come naturally.

I want to suck every last ounce of emotion out of this for the next hour.

And I want to focus on the truth.

There is a time to be emotional when you see that news alert on your phone.

There is a time to go against what seems rational when you're a police officer about to run into a classroom and take on an active shooter.

But this is the time to act rationally, to make sober decisions based on facts and reason, and to know the truth.

On this episode, we are going to look at some of the most common myths,

misunderstandings, outright lies, all of them being told by the left and the media about guns.

What is the truth about gun violence?

Have we really had 27 school shootings this year?

Why is this happening all the time, over and over again?

Is it true that more guns means more murder?

How can we stop this?

What about Australia's approach?

Did that work?

Why doesn't this happen in other countries?

And what are about our rights?

I mean, Joe Biden is always saying, you couldn't own a cannon at the time of the founding.

Is that true?

Can we and should we ban AR-15s?

Are AR-15s really 200 times as deadly?

And would banning assault rifles even work?

Did it work last time we tried it?

The truth is, whenever something like this happens, we hear the same arguments over and over again.

The same people telling the same lies, or at the very least, ignorantly repeating those lies over and over again.

My hope is to give you a resource that you can continue to come back to whenever you see these lies start to spread.

It's the definitive takedown of all the left's gun lies.

We start debunking next.

Ah, from cringing at the pump to getting an eye-popping check at your favorite restaurant, inflation is here.

It's hitting us where it hurts.

It really does hurt.

That's why I started using Upside.

You got to look for ways to push back against the inflation, basically.

And Upside is an incredible app for anyone who buys gas, groceries, or dines out.

With every purchase, I'm earning cash back thanks to Upside.

I know one of my gas stations I go to frequently, every time I go with Upside, I get nine cents a gallon off.

Now, nine cents a gallon, over time, that really starts to add up.

To get started, download the free Upside app in the App Store or Google Play.

Use my promo code Stew.

You'll get five bucks or more cash back on your first purchase of $10 or more.

Next, claim an offer, whatever you're buying in at Upside.

You can check in at the business, pay as usual with a credit or debit card, and get paid.

In comparison to credit card rewards or loyalty programs, you can earn three times more cash back with Upside.

You can cash out anytime to your bank account, PayPal, or e-gift card at Amazon or other brands.

Upside users are earning more than a million dollars every week, and they've got great ratings on the App Store and everything else.

Download the free Upside app and use the promo code STU to check five to get five bucks more cash back on your first purchase of $10 or more.

It's $5 or more cash back on your first purchase of $10 or more using the promo code STU with Upside.

Hi, this is Glenn Beck, and you are listening to a very special episode of Stu Does America, the definitive debunking of the left's gun myths.

If you like what you hear, make sure you take a second right now and follow Stu Does America for new episodes every weekday, or you just click the link in the show notes.

All right, Blazetv.com slash Stu.

Promo code is debunked for $20 off your subscription to Blaze TV.

Let's get right into this.

Remember the goal here.

The left wants you to give up a constitutionally guaranteed right that cannot be infringed.

That is a heavy lift for them.

The first step in that process is to make you feel overwhelmed.

You need to feel like this is always happening, like it never stops.

Like everywhere you turn is another school shooting.

You've seen this headline probably online over the past week.

There have been 27 school shootings in 2022 so far.

It comes from Education Week.

They've been maintaining a list of school shootings for several years.

But to get to 27 and make you feel overwhelmed, they include stuff like this.

In Illinois, a seven-year-old student was grazed by a bullet when a gun in another student's backpack accidentally discharged.

That counts as a school shooting.

In North Carolina, a teenager was shot and injured in the school parking lot during a fight over a gun.

on a teacher workday.

So not in the school, not on a school day, but still a school shooting.

In Florida, a male student shot and injured an 18-year-old student.

Police say the student, the shooting appeared to have been a result of a dispute between the kids.

So a shooting occurred, yes.

It was an isolated incident, however, it was not a random attack on the entire school.

Ten more of the recorded school shootings didn't even take place inside the schools.

Several were in parking lots, a few more in buses or vehicles around or en route to the schools, and a handful took place after school hours during sporting events or graduation ceremonies.

Of the 27 recorded school shootings this year, if you think about what a school shooting really elicits in your head, about four of them were even close to what most of us would think of when we hear about students being killed at school, and that includes Uvalde, and only one child in addition to Uvalde has died, thankfully.

There is a reason why we always refer to events that happened four years ago and 10 years ago, because the reality is not that we have constant school shootings, but rather that we have had one really,

really horrific incident very recently, and it's on our minds.

I want to add a little perspective here, because the media wants you to believe that your kids are constantly in danger, and perhaps more importantly, that they are

the only ones that have the solutions, these solutions that could easily be implemented

if just those darn Republicans would get out of the way.

That's the way they talk about this stuff.

The average kid goes to school for about 180 days a year.

The average school has about 500 students in it.

That's about 90,000

student days per school per year.

Right now, our focus is understandably on one school in Uvalde.

But there are 150,000 schools in America.

That's 13.5 billion times every year that a kid goes to school, and almost every single kid on almost every single day never has to face anything like what we saw last week.

In fact, even if your child went to school in Uvalde on the day of the shooting, you still had about a 99.5% chance that your kid came home.

Now, that's not acceptable in any way, obviously.

It needs to be 100%.

This doesn't make anyone who has to deal with the impossible grief of losing a child feel any better.

And the physical and emotional scars are going to haunt this community forever.

It goes way beyond those who were killed in the incident.

But I lay it out this way for two reasons.

Number one, your best defense against this happening to you or someone you love is not gun control or even red flag laws or even armed security at every school.

Your best defense is the odds.

It's true.

The media wants you to think that this country is filled with maniacs looking to murder kids around every corner, but that's not who we are.

Statistically, even when you consider the terrible mass shootings that we've experienced, school remains one of the safest places your kids will ever be.

They might be learning CRT instead of math, but they are not constantly on the verge of catastrophe.

The second reason I point this out is to illustrate how difficult of a problem this is to solve.

Think back to your days in school.

Remember that kid who was

a little bit off and you thought maybe he might wind up showing up at a school with a gun.

If you can't remember that kid, I hate to break it to you.

It was probably you.

But every school has one or more of these guys that, I don't know, they might just go off the deep end at any moment.

At least that's what we think.

And we have 150,000 schools and over 13 billion student days to try to defend.

Changing some gun laws is not going to stop a problem that is such a needle in a haystack.

I know it doesn't feel this way, but this is not an epidemic.

Mass shootings at school are incredibly rare events.

And that's not me saying that.

Those are researchers at Northeastern University.

Quote, this is not an epidemic.

Mass school shootings are incredibly rare events.

These are exceedingly rare events.

We're not talking about even one in a million.

Even if you include mass shootings that aren't in schools, we're talking about something like one in a hundred million.

Your chances of being killed in a mass shooting are probably no greater than being struck by lightning.

Again, that's not me saying that.

That's a criminologist from the Minnesota Department of Corrections who literally wrote the definitive history on mass murders in America.

Quote, mass shootings are exceedingly rare events.

The average annual rate of U.S.

mass shootings is is less than one per 100 million people.

Chances of being killed in a mass shooting are probably no greater than being struck by lightning, end quote.

This isn't a needle in a haystack.

It's a speck of dust on a needle in a haystack.

And that's what makes these incidents so difficult to stop once they have become ingrained into the dark reaches of our culture.

But even if they're rare events, why are they increasing so much?

Here's the thing.

They're not.

I know it feels like they are, but they're not.

Over the past 30 years, the most dangerous year when it comes to risk of dying from a school shooting was the year I graduated high school, 1994.

That's not me saying that.

That's Northeastern University again.

Here's the chart to show you exactly how it looks.

This goes back to up to 2015.

This particular chart obviously doesn't include the last week, but there's not been a rise above Sandy Hook level violence since then.

And what you see is that we have a major downtrend down since the mid-90s.

That's in schools.

And the overall peak of mass shootings in this country was not 2021, it was 1929.

Mass shootings get a lot of attention, and that is understandable.

But it's also the main reason why they occur.

The attention, the spectacle, the pain, the anguish, the terror, the fear.

That's what these shooters are after.

But the simple truth is this.

White supremacists and scary-looking guns get the focus from our president and our politicians.

But mass shootings only make up about 0.2%

of the murders in this country.

0.2%.

Yes, of course.

We should do whatever we can within the bounds of the Constitution to eliminate that 0.2%.

But even if we're completely successful at doing so, we still have 99.8% of murders that still remain, the overwhelming majority of which occur in Democratic-run cities, supported by decades and decades of Democratic voters and policies, voting in Democrats over and over and over again.

And that's why the president and the media don't want to to talk about it.

You know, buying or selling a home is already one of the most stressful things you can do.

And it can be 10 times worse if you're not working with the right agent.

Generally speaking, our homes are our biggest investment.

If you're an American, it's probably a good chunk of your retirement.

That's part of the plan.

It's a lot of responsibility, and you need an agent who can take that seriously.

That's why I always tell you about realestate agentsitrust.com.

They work with the best agents in every market.

They do their homework.

They talk to every agent before inviting them to join the network.

And here's a big one.

They only work with full-time professionals, no part-time or inexperienced agents.

The team makes the introduction and then follows you through the buying or selling process to make sure you're satisfied.

The process is simple.

Just go to realestateagentsitrust.com, provide them with some basic info, and the team will contact you to make an introduction to their preferred agent in your town.

You need the best, you deserve the best.

Realestateagentsitrust.com.

It's realestate agentsitrust.com.

Hi, this is Glenn Beck, and you are listening to a very special episode of Stu Does America, the definitive debunking of the left's gun myths.

If you like what you hear, make sure you take a second right now and follow Stu Does America for new episodes every weekday, or you just click the link in the show notes.

Today, we're debunking the biggest claims about guns on the left and in the media.

If you want more of this type of stuff, subscribe, blazetv.com/slash stew.

The promo code is debunked.

It'll save you 20 bucks off your subscription.

The foundation of the left's claims on guns is the more gun control you have, the less violence you have.

But fundamentally, we know this isn't true.

Look at the recent past here in America.

Americans buy more the guns today than they did in the 1990s, about four times the number of background checks performed than in 1999.

But violent crime has decreased radically since those years, with homicides falling almost by half between 1991 and 2020.

So what does that mean exactly?

In a period where violent crime has fallen by half, we've added 150 million guns to the country's constitutionally protected private arsenal.

Again, 150 million more guns, half.

the rate of violent crime.

But our rates are still higher than other countries, and that's true.

So why don't we just do what Australia did?

To give you some background about Australia, in 1996 a man killed 35 people with a semi-automatic rifle in Australia.

12 days after this happened, they passed the National Agreement on Firearms, or the NFA.

A quick side note here, it's always a good idea to pass new laws when you're in the middle of national mourning.

What could possibly go wrong?

But it wasn't just a set of gun control laws.

It was a full-fledged gun confiscation program.

The measure prohibited automatic and semi-automatic assault rifles, made it tougher to get a license, tightened ownership rules, made people demonstrate a genuine need for their guns, take a firearm safety course, launch a mass gun confiscation program, among a million other things.

Before we move on, it's important to realize that this program goes much farther than any of these sensible gun solutions that any Democrat has the balls to propose.

This confiscation program collected about 650,000 guns.

Think about that.

They forcibly bought back somewhere between 20 and 35% of all the guns in Australia.

To do that here, you'd have to forcibly buy back close to 150 million guns.

And if you somehow got past the cost of all of that and the fact that it's obviously unconstitutional and somehow avoided the civil war that it would start, you would still have as many guns on the street that you had in the 1990s when violent crime rates were twice as high.

And you'd still have a country with double the amount of guns per capita than any other country on earth.

So it doesn't make any sense.

But did it actually work in Australia?

Was it a success in Australia?

Left-wing outlet Vox attempted to make that case following the Texas shooting with this headline, Australia confiscated 650,000 guns.

Murders and suicides plummeted.

Of course, even their own write-up of the research doesn't support that headline.

Quote, bottom line, Australia's gun buyback may well have saved lives, likely by reducing homicides and almost certainly by reducing suicides.

Again, Australian lessons might not necessarily apply to the U.S.

given the many cultural and political differences between the two countries, but in thinking about gun violence and how to limit it, this seems like a worthwhile thing to look at.

Got that?

The headline is Death's Plummet.

The article seems like it might be a worthwhile thing to look at.

Even this, though, is a stretch, and you can tell by the way they write the article.

For example, here's their big mic drop claim.

Ready for it?

The RAND authors conclude the strongest evidence is consistent with the claim that the NFA caused reductions in firearms, suicides, mass shootings, and female homicide victimization.

So how are they scamming you?

Well, first of all, they give it away in the disclaimer from the paragraph directly before their big mic drop moment.

Here it is.

Quote, a 2021 meta-analysis of the available evidence conducted by the RAND Corporation found that it's very tricky to pin down the contribution of Australia's policies to a reduction in gun violence due in part to the pre-existing declining trend that when it comes to overall homicides in particular, there's not especially great evidence that Australia's buyback had a significant effect.

Nevertheless, and then they have their big mic drop moment.

Nevertheless, they nevertheless all of that.

That's like Elaine on Seinfeld yada yadaing sex.

And note the words they use here.

There's not especially great evidence.

What does that mean?

That, my friends, is the Vox translation of this line from the study.

Quote, in total, evidence is weak for an effect of the NFA on firearm homicides.

Why would you turn evidence is weak into not especially great evidence?

I mean, I guess weak is not especially great.

But the only reason you'd say it like that is to fool your own readers.

In the analysis from RAND, they looked at five studies, four of which try to actually compare real-world Australia before and after the gun buyback.

Here's what they found.

Remember, this is the study they're talking about.

A 2015 study found, quote, no evidence of an effect.

It also found a notable drop in non-firearm homicides, but nothing significant with guns.

A 2016 study found, quote, no evidence of an effect, though it also found a bigger difference in non-firearm homicides.

A 2018 study that found, quote, no evidence that trends differed for firearm and non-firearm

assault mortality for men or women.

Another 2018 study found a small decrease in homicide rates as opposed to a prediction made by the authors of the study of a synthetic future.

And this only showed up among women.

Men showed no statistically significant difference.

I'll also note that somehow Vox seemed to have missed a few of the other studies on this topic, like this one from the University of Melbourne that concluded, there is little evidence to suggest that the Australian mandatory gun buyback program had any significant effects on firearm homicides.

Or this study from the British Journal of Criminology that said, quote, the gun buyback and restrictive legislative changes had no influence on firearm homicide in Australia.

Of course, all these studies are filled as well with references about why you just can't apply Australia's non-existent solution to the United States.

Luckily, Rand also did a study of gun laws generally.

For all those people that say the science is settled, that there are easy ways to stop mass shootings and gun violence, here's what Rand found.

I'm going to give you all of these for full transparency.

Raising the minimum age for purchasing guns, inconclusive effect on firearm homicides.

Raising the minimum age for possessing guns, inconclusive.

Mental health prohibitions, inconclusive.

Domestic violence prohibitions, inconclusive.

Background checks through the dealer, you know, aka the background checks we already have.

They say there is a moderate amount of evidence that they are helpful.

But background checks for private transfers, the ones the left is always begging for, inconclusive effect on firearm homicides.

Gun licensing, inconclusive.

Waiting periods, the lowest confidence level, limited evidence.

It changes firearm homicide rates.

Ban on assault weapons, inconclusive.

Bans on high-capacity magazines, inconclusive.

Bans on low-quality handguns, inconclusive.

Child access prevention laws.

Inconclusive.

How about pro-2A reforms like shall issue concealed carry?

Surely that's going to make rates of violence skyrocket, right?

No.

Inconclusive.

The only policy that had what they considered supportive evidence of a rise in homicide was stand-your-ground laws.

But remember, and this doesn't sound right when you say it, but homicides aren't always bad things.

The legal definition of homicide is, quote, when one human being causes the death of another.

Not all homicide is murder, and

some killings are manslaughter, and some are lawful, such as when justified by an affirmative defense, like insanity or self-defense.

So it would make sense that stand-your-ground laws would increase self-defense shootings.

I won't read all the categories again for you, but there's a similar result when it comes to mass shootings.

Inconclusive, inconclusive, inconclusive, inconclusive, inconclusive, inconclusive, inconclusive, inconclusive, inconclusive, and inconclusive.

You guessed it.

The point here isn't to say that no laws could ever have any effect.

Some of these policies you probably would even support.

But it's important to understand that we have little to no evidence that they actually work.

This is not the equivalent of water freezing at 32 degrees.

But the left has to present it like it's a rock-solid science because their goal is not to solve the problem.

It's to vilify you, the gun owner, the conservative.

You can't just be someone who disagrees.

You have to be someone who's denying science, risking the lives of innocent children just so you can get your jollies at the range.

It's a despicable tactic, but it's also essentially the official Democratic Party platform at this point.

So, okay, okay, okay.

So if none of these laws show any real effect, why doesn't this happen in other countries?

Here's the thing.

It does.

If you listen to these claims carefully, they always use a little sleight of hand.

First of all, they eliminate all mass killings that were committed by and sanctioned by various governments, which of course hold all of the top 1 zillion places on the mass murder countdown.

But they also eliminate everything outside of other rich countries.

It's not really clear why wealth would be the characteristic to look for when you're comparing these things.

Part of it, I guess, would be better record keeping, but more conveniently, it allows them to eliminate a lot of countries that look a lot worse than us.

One researcher who decided to look at the entire world wrote up the results in the Chicago Tribune: quote, from 1998 to 2015, the U.S.

makes up 1.49% of murders worldwide, 2.20% of the attacks, and less than 1.15% of mass public shooters.

All these are much less than America's 4.6% share of the world population.

Of the 97 countries where we identified mass public shootings, the U.S.

ranks 64th per capita in its rate of attacks and 65th in fatalities.

Major European countries such as Norway, Finland, France, Switzerland, and Russia all have had at least 25% higher per capita murder rates from from mass public shootings.

Another trick the media uses is that they simply just don't adjust for population.

The U.S.

is a big country.

It's a lot bigger than New Zealand.

We have way more mass shootings than New Zealand, that's true.

But on a per capita basis, you are over 4.3 times as likely to be killed in a mass shooting in New Zealand than you are in the United States.

Now, some might argue that they had that one big shooting, and that's messing up their numbers.

But even if you take out the Christchurch shooting, you are still about 1.7 times as likely to be killed in a mass shooting in New Zealand than you are in the United States.

The bottom line is, all of these country-to-country comparisons have incredible amounts of problems.

We are a different country with different problems and different trends and different cultures and different times have different cultural crimes of spectacle.

Some places it's terrorism.

some places it's cars running over crowds, some places it's political assassination.

I mean it certainly was here back in the 60s and 70s.

Maybe it was serial killers after that and then there was extremist terrorism and now it seems to be mass shootings.

Of course the biggest difference between us and other random countries is that we have a Second Amendment.

So unless you're going to repeal it and then start going door to door collecting weapons, good luck with that.

All of these comparisons are meaningless.

We already have all of these guns in private hands.

And I might note one other thing to the left.

Even if you take some of these guns and make others harder to buy, there's still a border to our south that you seem to have absolutely no interest in protecting.

So, until you want to deal with that, you have absolutely no credibility.

Hi, this is Glenn Beck, and you are listening to a very special episode of Stu Does America, the definitive debunking of the left's gun myths.

If you like what you hear, make sure you take a second right now and follow Stu Does America for new episodes every weekday, or you just click the link in the show notes.

Welcome back.

Help us debunk more of the left's lies.

Go to blazetv.com slash stew.

The promo code is debunked.

You'll save 20 bucks off your subscription and you'll help support efforts like this to take the lies out of the news.

It's really hard to do.

It's happening all the time.

They're constantly stretching the truth and telling lies.

We need to call them out on it.

So if you've watched Joe Biden bumble his way through his speech last night, if you've watched him bumble his way through the gun debate for as long as you've seen him in public life, you have definitely heard this claim.

The Second Amendment from the day it was passed limited the type of people who could own a gun and what type of weapon you could own.

You couldn't buy a cannon.

Very beginning, the Second Amendment didn't say you can own any gun you want, as big as you want.

You couldn't buy a cannon when, in fact, the Second Amendment passed.

When the amendment was passed, it didn't say anybody can own a gun and any kind of gun and any kind of weapon.

You couldn't buy a cannon when

this amendment was passed.

Second Amendment's not absolute.

When it was passed, you couldn't own a

you couldn't own a cannon.

Hmm.

Let's just drop this one quickly.

Joe Biden, as with many other things, has no idea what he's talking about.

David Harsani wrote a book about the history of guns in America.

He notes: quote, There is zero historical evidence that Americans were barred from purchasing or constructing any type of weapon they pleased.

Not only are there numerous accounts of the American military using or purchasing private cannons, privateers, as the name strongly suggests, relied on their own cannons as well.

The right to own a cannon is so ingrained in American history that literally Lewis and Clark owned them, along with a rifle that could shoot 30 times before reloading.

By the way, David French, who is even sympathetic to some restrictions like red flag laws, wrote, quote, it is historically indisputable that the founders protected the rights of Americans to possess weapons that gave individual citizens far greater military parity with the government than American citizens possess now.

The musket was the principal weapon of armed conflict in the 18th century.

An American leaving his home with a musket was on par with a member of the Continental line.

Not so with an American who possesses any number of AR-15s or AK-47s.

The contemporary gap between civilians and the military is vast and growing.

Weapons of war indeed.

How about this?

These are a couple of historians for you.

It seems highly unlikely that there are restrictions on the private ownership of cannons, said Julianne Sweet, a historian and director of military studies at Baylor University.

David Capell, research director and Second Amendment project director at the Free Market Independence Institute, agreed, quote, I am not aware of a ban on any arm in colonial America.

Charles C.W.

Cook points out, we don't need the past tense here.

Americans can still buy a cannon.

If the cannon you want to buy was manufactured before 1898, it's a muzzle-loading model, you can do so without regulation.

If it is a saluting cannon, it is also exempt.

And if it's neither a saluting cannon or a cannon or a pre-1898 model, you need to pay a $200 tax stamp, fill in some forms, wait a bit, and, well, that's it.

Cannons are categorized as destructive devices under the 1934 National Firearms Act, and they're legal under federal law and in most states.

You may have to jump through a few hoops to get one, but get one, you assuredly can.

As even left-leaning PolitiFact notes, Biden was unable to come up with an example.

of a law banning private ownership of cannons, and historians of the period doubt that any existed.

To the contrary, there are documented instances of privateers or privately owned vessels setting sail with cannons during the period, we rate the statement false.

As amazing as it is that they would actually call Biden out, what is more amazing is the date of this fact check, June of 2020.

This guy was called out years ago for blatantly false claims by a bunch of historians and he's still trotting out as a central part of his argument on guns two years later that you couldn't own own a cannon back when the Second Amendment was passed.

Now, some might argue that Joe Biden is just an idiot, and that's true.

But no one other than him is talking about cannons.

Is that true?

Well, I guess so.

He seems to be the only one talking about cannons.

Why not just ban AR-15s?

Well, that depends on what your goals are.

Is your goal to ban a scary-looking gun, or is it to stop gun violence?

Because AR-15s are not the issue here.

Rifles of all types, but including the AR-15, are a minuscule part of the problem.

Quote, all rifles together accounting for only 2.5% of homicides.

In fact, more people are killed each year by personal weapons, also known as hands and feet.

Yes, more hands and feet kill people than AR-15s.

And that's, by the way, not just AR-15s, all rifles combined.

The number is just slightly higher for AR-15s and all rifles combined than clubs and hammers, and is less than one-third of knives.

And restricting the purchase of guns doesn't go very far.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, only 1.3%

of state and federal prisoners used a firearm that they acquired from a retail source.

Your laws are cute and everything, but criminals don't care about them.

So where did they get their guns if they had them?

The number one source by a mile was: quote, off the street/slash underground market.

The second biggest category were guns that were bought for them illegally by relatives and friends.

Many of them were also shockingly stolen, which I believe is also technically illegal.

Some were found at the scene of other crimes.

Add it all up, about 90% of these guns came from other means.

These things happen about 12 times as often as purchase at gun stores and about 112 times as often as the purchase of one of these guns at the vilified gun show.

How does this relate to mass shootings though?

Well, you know, it does seem like most mass shootings are carried out with AR-15s and undoubtedly some of them are.

The majority of them though use handguns.

And remember, we already tried banning quote-unquote assault weapons long, long ago.

How did that work out exactly?

Well, there's been a renewed effort lately to try and claim that assault weapons and the ban of them in the 1990s was successful.

But the government itself told the story correctly 20 years ago.

Here's what it said.

Although the ban has been successful in reducing crimes with assault weapons, Any benefits from this reduction are likely to have been outweighed by a steady or rising use of non-banned semi-automatics with large-capacity magazines, which are used in crime much more frequently than assault weapons.

Therefore, we

cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation's recent drop in gun violence.

And indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence based on indicators like the percentage of gun crimes resulting in death or the share of gunfire incidents resulting in injury, as we might have expected had the ban reduced crimes with both assault weapons and large capacity capacity magazines.

Got it?

So boil it down.

There may have been fewer deaths by assault weapons, but they were just replaced by additional deaths by handgun.

He later went on to clarify, in general, we found really very,

very little evidence, almost none, that gun violence was becoming any less lethal or any less injurious during this timeframe.

So on balance, we concluded that the ban had not had a discernible impact on gun crime during the years it was in effect.

The study's author went on to say that

the assault weapons ban could potentially produce at least a small reduction in shootings if allowed to remain in place for a longer time frame.

So

maybe at some point in the future, it might have started to work eventually.

Quite the endorsement there.

The left-wing media has now just begun to literally fabricate evidence out of thin air Now, unfortunately for them, Kevin Williamson caught them in the act.

Saul Cornell is a professor at Fordham and a contributor to Slate.

He recently made the claim that AR-15s are 200 times as deadly as muskets.

So where did this claim come from?

When pressed, he referenced a 1964 military study, which is interesting because the cartridge used in the AR-15 typically wasn't even developed until a decade later, later, after 1964.

So it's weird that they would have referenced it in 1964.

When pressed by Kevin Williamson, he basically said he took a military machine gun from the study that was listed as 115 times as deadly, and then just increased the number because,

well, because he wanted to.

Eventually, Slate decided to issue a sort of correction, which still doesn't seem to have much of a basis, but that's not really the point.

As Williamson notes, quote, I have a good deal of experience in writing about bias in gun policy journalism, but this is not bias.

It is fabrication.

Here we have a professor at a major university writing an article in a major media outlet on the subject of a very contentious public policy matter.

And the first claim of fact in the piece is simply made up.

in order to bolster a weak argument made by a writer who believed, with good reason apparently, that he could count on the bias and laziness of his editors and the stupidity of his readers to permit the fabrication to go undetected and unchallenged.

And this is the crux of it.

Of the whole show, honestly.

The media hopes they can get away with saying whatever they want, whenever they want, true or not.

Most people will have no idea that they're lying.

And even if they get caught, they can always fall back on the emotion of the moment to shield them.

We need to do something.

They say it over and over and over again.

But this idea of running quickly in any direction, even if there's a brick wall in the way, is just blather.

We need to do something just means we need to do exactly what I want you to do.

When the American people hear that, they instinctively want to push back.

And now you know why they find it so important to take your rights away.

Hi, this is Glenn Beck, and you are listening to a very special episode of Stu Does America, the definitive debunking of the left's gun myths.

If you like what you hear, make sure you take a second right now and follow Stu Does America for new episodes every weekday, or you just click the link in the show notes.

You know, sometimes these gun control measures seem like good ideas.

Sometimes they sound decent even to conservatives.

You know, Some of the stuff is, I don't know, it wouldn't be super restrictive to my life.

It's not that big of a deal.

And that's an understandable instinct.

Some of the stuff, if we were actually dealing with honest brokers, maybe some of the stuff could be stuff that you could talk about with the other side.

The problem is they're not honest brokers.

There is an agenda here, and it's quite clear what they want to do in the long term.

And every time you see one of these little baby steps, you have to realize that you're just shortening the timeframe until they get what they want, which is

your ability to protect yourself, your constitutionally guaranteed God-given rights, are going to go away.

They do want to get all of these guns off the streets.

They do want all of the powers that you're seeing being utilized right now in Canada, where they just said, basically, guns are going to be banned completely with this generation.

You can't transfer them.

You can't sell them.

You can't buy new ones.

So guess what happens eventually, boys and girls?

The problem is if you give them an inch, they will take a thousand miles.

Every single time the same thing happens.

And that's why it's so important for you to know the facts and how to push back against these arguments, to make sure we don't get caught up in their traps, because that's what they're laying here.

Traps for all of us.

We did everything we could today to get through as many of those traps, as many of those gun myths, as was possible in this hour.

But of course, we couldn't fit everything in.

I will tell you, Glenn Beck wrote a book a few years ago that goes into even more depth and deals with a lot of the constitutional arguments associated with this as well.

It's called Control.

And if you don't have it, you should have it in your library or on your device.

But we still have tons of stuff that we prepped for you in this special today.

So this is what I'm going to do.

We're going to extend this episode on our podcast feed.

So wherever you get your podcast, you can go there, look for Studo's America, or you can just go to studebunksmyths.com.

That'll get you there directly.

That's the only way to get the full extended episode of what we're doing tonight with all of the myths that we could come up with to debunk.

While you're there, make sure to follow the podcast and do the same on YouTube.

It makes a huge difference if you want us to continue to do this type of stuff to debunk the lies of the left.

If you want to see those lies go down, please join us.

And you can join us as well at Blaze TV.

Special discount going on now, blazetv.com slash stew.

You can get 20 bucks off your subscription right now with the code debunked.

It's blazetv.com slash stew.

The promo code is debunked.

We'll see you over on the podcast side.

Hi, this is Glenn Beck, and you are listening to a very special episode of Stu Does America, the definitive debunking of the left's gun myths.

If you like what you hear, make sure you take a second right now and follow Stew Does America for new episodes every every weekday, or you just click the link in the show notes.

All right, welcome to our extended bonus coverage here.

Stu debunks gun myths.

We went through a ton of them already.

We appreciate you hanging out and trying to get as much information on this really important topic as is possible.

I was going flipping through my cards here, and I looked at this U.S.

murders by weapon chart that we featured.

And there's a viral video that's going around that's about this chart.

Basically, it's a guy out in front of the NRA convention.

He's wearing like an oxygen

going up his nose.

And he's, you know, he's got the, a liberal comes up to him and says, hey, you know, what do you think about gun rights?

And he says, you know, guns are used in less murders than

hands and fists, I think he says.

And the guy pulls out his phone.

And he goes and he pulls up the chart and he's got the chart in his phone.

He goes, no, actually, it's guns are way higher than hands and fists.

And the guy just sits there like, uh, and he doesn't know what's going on.

he doesn't know what to say and he says uh but i still want my second amendment rights and they're basically like this guy look at this sucker outside of the nra doesn't know what he's talking about now of course when you look at do we have the chart again by any chance if you look at the chart what he meant of course was rifles he's heard the chart it's true rifles are used less than hands and fists we mentioned it just a second ago he had heard the statistic but got it kind of slightly wrong and you know it was wrong but to try to make this guy out to be an idiot who didn't know what he was talking about is totally unfair the point is the ar-15 is used in much less death fewer deaths than uh than hands and feet uh and he and he messed the stat up i'm sorry he's not a pro that's one of the reasons why we wanted to do this particular special is because i you know i know

when we were putting this together we were looking for all these gun myths and then someone come would come up and they'd be like what about this claim what about the cannons thing and i was like you know i it's been a while i kind of remember that i mean that's not true, I'm pretty sure, but it's been a while since I looked it up.

Let me look it up.

I take some time, we do the research, we bring you all the quotes and everything else, so you have them all in one place.

And now, next time you hear somebody, probably Joe Biden, saying that, you can go back and come back to this special and know where the information came from, get the sources, see the charts, see the quotes, see who said it, all that stuff.

It's all in one place because, you know, I don't know if you're like me.

I've done too many brain cells are dead already.

I can't remember everything anymore.

I I want to make sure I can come back to a resource that I trust.

So hopefully you're getting that out of the special tonight.

I want to go through a few of these other things that we had prepped and just didn't have a chance to get to.

And one of the things I want to talk about is

this idea that 90% of people support these common sense gun measures.

This is a thing, a trope that the left brings out all the time.

You'll see it from mainstream media sources constantly.

And part of it is actually true.

When asked, people respond to polls and say generally about 90% of people, sometimes it's in the 80s, sometimes it's in the 90s, support things like universal background checks.

Now, there's big caveats to that statistic.

Number one, most people don't understand the nuances of gun laws.

They don't understand that almost every weapon purchased right now already goes through a background check.

If you were to go from zero background checks to universal background checks, the support probably would be around,

you know, maybe not universal, but from zero to where we are now, it would probably be around 90%.

People would want, people want some sort of background check done on the majority of gun purchases.

However, they don't know that they're already checked.

I mean,

I am not a gun guy.

I've talked about this before.

I'm not a guy who's constantly at the range.

I do own some firearms until they were lost in a tragic boating accident not that long ago.

All of them at the bottom of the lake, never to be recovered.

So that's unfortunate.

But I at one point did buy,

I bought several guns, and and some of them I bought at gun stores.

But I did buy one at a gun show.

And I've heard the gun show loophole thing over and over and over again.

I pretty much thought I could send in my 10-year-old and he could go buy one.

I mean, that's pretty much the way the media presents it.

But of course, that's not true.

I went through a full background check just like I did at the gun store.

You know, that is kind of what goes on with almost every gun purchase.

So that's part of the reason why that number is so high in the 90%.

They're not supporting the Democratic proposal.

They're just supporting the idea that people should have background checks generally when guns are purchased.

Now, go beyond that.

The left has fooled themselves with this.

They have actually hurt their own movement by believing the hype on these polls, which I think any Any person who really works in politics has to know the truth here.

The truth is that 90% don't support the Democratic policy.

In Maine,

they decided to put in a background check bill basically to be voted on by the people.

And they put it out there and they made it

really like tailored to conservatives, right?

So one of the big complaints about background check laws are: well, what about what if I'm giving my gun to my son when he gets, he turns 18, I just want to give him the gun, or I pass away, I want to hand it down to him.

Do I have to get a background check to give the gun to my son?

What if we're out hunting and I'm using my gun and my buddy wants to use it?

If I hand it to him, technically that's some violation if I don't have a background check.

All this stuff, you know, they're not the vast majority of

transfers of guns, but you don't want to, you see how seriously they take gun crimes.

I used to live in Pennsylvania and I lived one block away from the river.

So every day when I commuted to work, we did the show at CNN and at Fox, I would go one block to the river, then I would cross a bridge, I would be in New Jersey, and I'd go for another about a mile before I got to the train station, and then I'd get on the train and come to New York.

Well, I was terrified, terrified that I would forget and leave my gun in my trunk and then get pulled over in New Jersey and then go to prison because that has happened to people who have just gone across the river to the convenience store or to a restaurant or whatever, get pulled over and then wind up going to prison because they're gun criminals.

So this is a serious thing.

Anyway, the main law was tailored to those concerns.

They really did go after and try to persuade conservatives to say, okay, we'll go along with this.

Now, they did a study and basically tried to figure out what was the expected support level for this

vote when they went in front of people.

This was in 2016.

They expected 83% of the vote.

However, it didn't even pass.

They only got 48% of the vote.

That's because answering a question to a pollster Seems like the right answer to say is, of course, I'm for background checks.

Yes, of course.

But in reality, when you're faced with the actual policy, it was only 48%.

It didn't even pass.

The other states were essentially the same stories, though some of them did pass.

In California, they expected 91%, only got 63.

In Washington, they expected 81%, only got 59.

In Nevada, they expected 86%

and only got 50%.

And this is because people don't actually support these policies the way the media wants you to believe that they do.

They want everyone to believe these policies are overwhelmingly popular.

People want these gun restrictions.

Gun owners are demanding them, but they just won't give them those restrictions on law-abiding citizens who aren't the ones committing the crimes, as we covered earlier in the program.

And this goes on as well.

Nate Cohen from the New York Times pointed this out, that guns are a very specific issue in America.

You know, I kind of breezed by this quickly

in one of the segments of the past hour, but it's not like we like guns here in America.

We freaking love them.

They are, I mean, arguably one of the most

centrally defining characteristics of our culture.

And I know Europe would say, yeah, that's why we never have anyone die in our lands.

I mean, sure, people run over thousands at a time at street fairs, but generally speaking, we never have any shootings, which of course, as we covered earlier, isn't true either.

But like,

guns are a central part of who we are in this country.

We are one of only it depends on who you ask.

I would say we're the only one with a actual Second Amendment in our Constitution.

Some people say there's as high as three countries in the world that have that type of thing.

But the second highest gun ownership per capita is Yemen.

And Yemen's at, I think, 52 per 100 people.

We're at like 120.

120, 130.

We have more guns than people.

Nobody else has half as much except Yemen, who is slightly over that amount when it comes to gun ownership.

We really do love our guns, and there's just no way you're going to reverse 200 years of history by a couple of laws.

These things are not going away.

You better do what you can around the margins to try to manage the situation.

And that's why

security and mental health and those types of things are far more likely to get done and far more likely to actually make a difference.

To give you a sense of how unpopular gun restrictions are with Republicans, they are less popular

than Hillary Clinton.

I kid you not, this is from Nate Cohn's analysis.

In California, they looked at heavily Republican counties and found in 2016 when the gun background check bill was, the referendum was going through, 31% in those counties voted for Clinton for president, and only 30% supported background checks.

In Maine, same story.

35% supported Clinton for president, only 27%

supported background checks.

And other

issues were just as popular.

I mean, 45%

would rather support taxing the rich for schools, 45% legalizing marijuana, 46% raising the minimum wage among conservative counties.

And yet, 19 points behind that was background checks for guns.

These are not as popular as the media wants you to believe.

And as I think we covered in extreme depth, probably too much depth, honestly, probably too much detail.

But I really wanted to paint the picture for you.

This is not settled science that any of these things really do much of anything.

There's no, they're trying to act like

it's, you know, the 212 degrees is when water boils.

That is not what this is.

It's a totally different situation.

And you've seen them do this on so many different issues.

It's science that trans men are actually men and not women.

It's science that

CRT should be taught in schools.

It's science that every

COVID thing they said from beginning to end with masks and all the rest, that was all settled science.

Global warming, settled science, everything's settled science.

They have to make you look that way to bully you.

And that's that's just not the case with these gun laws at all.

Another big thing we wanted to get to but didn't have the chance is the idea that these are all white people.

You notice how these are all white males doing these mass shootings?

You get a bunch of white males, they come out there, they're shooting up schools, they're all racist, this is a white supremacy problem.

Over and over and over again, you hear the same thing.

And you always know when it's not a white guy, like in Tulsa, because they report on it for like 10 minutes.

And a bunch of people tweet that this has got to be white supremacy, and then they delete their tweets and the story is forgotten forever.

That is just the pattern every single time.

Here's the graph of the ethnicity of mass shooters between 1982 and 2022.

I'd say there's about 130 on this list.

About 68 of them are white, 21 are black, 11 are Latino, Asian, 8, and then Native American 3.

And you might say, well, look, that proves white people are all the mass shooters.

They're by far the biggest amount.

Yeah, but white people are also the biggest part of the country.

About 56% of these mass shooters are white.

That is far lower than their population

representation would lead you to believe.

You'd think they'd be about 70, 75% of mass shooters, and instead are only about 55%

of mass shooters.

So there's a huge difference there.

And I will tell you right now, any of you Asians out there, we're watching because you are overrepresented in these ethnic numbers.

And if we've learned anything, we know that ethnicity is the most important defining characteristic of any person.

I used to think that skin color wasn't supposed to matter, but now we know, thanks to Ibram X.

Kendi, that it's the only thing that matters.

Let's see, let's go through some of this as well.

How about defensive uses of guns?

We had a ridiculous congressperson, we played the audio on radio today, yelling that these things are never stopped.

Guns don't stop these mass shootings it's never happened before it had happened the week before but defensive uses of guns are a

something that happens all over the place all the time I tweeted a video today actually of an amazing amazing video it's a video from inside somebody's house where he's looking through the peephole he sees somebody coming up to the door and he

turns around calmly walks inside then you see the door get kicked down and as they did the burglars try to come in, he's just got an AR-15 pointed right at their chest the second they kick that door down.

And then you want to see people move fast.

Wow, they go really quickly the opposite direction.

It's at Studios America if you want to see the video.

And it's really illustrative of these types of situations.

Here, let me give you some of the facts here.

This is from the Journal of Quantitative Criminology.

Armed citizens use guns to defend themselves at least 989,883 times every year.

The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology published a study by scholars Gary Kleck and Mark Goertz that revealed that gun owners use their legally owned firearms to defend themselves an average of 1.8 plus million times per year.

Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

Now, as you know, they're never wrong.

about anything.

They estimated annual defensive gun use ranges from about 500,000 to more than 3 million times per year.

That's significant.

And

the best thing and the worst thing about defensive gun use is, like the video I told you about, there were no shots fired.

There was no trading of gunfire.

It wasn't a shootout.

The gun just ended the crime.

The crime doesn't even get really recorded.

And maybe because they kicked the door open, I guess maybe that one would if you reported it to police.

But the bottom line was there was nobody hurt.

There was nobody injured.

Nothing was stolen.

No one went to the hospital.

No one ended up in a cemetery.

It was just an event that could have been much, much worse and instead wound up being nothing.

That's what guns do in the overwhelming majority of cases.

They stop the event before it starts.

And

that's one of the issues that I find to be so perplexing.

The left has gone down this road for a very long time where they've said, well, security isn't the answer.

Maybe it can help occasionally, but it's going to make kids feel like they're in a police state.

And, you know, look, when I go to a bank, I don't feel like I'm in a police state.

And I understand certain things of value need to be protected.

We do it at federal buildings, we do it at courthouses, we do it at banks.

Why don't we do it at schools?

You know, and they say, well, there's one study out there that we didn't get a chance to go through.

It's really light on detail, so there's not much to really pick apart.

They just kind of give you the summary and not really the underlying data, so I didn't think it was worth too much time.

Plus, it's just obvious that it's not true.

The idea that secure, if you have armed guards, you are more likely to have a mass shooting.

Now,

there's a bit of a a chicken and the egg

problem going on here.

And to their credit, the study authors do note that it's not controlled for

characteristics of the school.

So, I mean, one of the big issues here is kind of one of the reasons you have armed guards is if you've already had problems.

So, you're probably more likely to have issues at a school that has armed guards because they put the armed guards there because they were worried that something might happen.

So, there's a chicken and an egg situation going on there.

But the thing to remember more than anything else is all

100% of mass shootings end with armed security.

All of them.

That's what happens.

The question for you is not whether they end with armed security.

The question is whether the cops come after the shooting is done or if they're there in advance and can have at least a chance to prevent it.

As we saw in Parkland, having an armed guard on premises does not mean there's no chance of a mass shooting.

If the guy decides to sit by the stairs, well, no, it's not going to work very well.

You need to have people who are actually doing something.

If you've got 19 cops outside of the school room while the shooting is going on, no, it's not going to work that well.

But at least it gives you a chance.

At least it gives you an opportunity to fight back.

You put one of these gun-free zones out there,

these people, no, without exception, they will go into a place where no one can protect themselves.

And that is not a place I want my kids to be.

Is there anything else here?

The Connecticut assault weapons ban we were going to talk about as well,

I just felt like it was a little too in-depth to go into in a short period of time.

They passed an assault weapons ban.

There were a bunch of studies on it.

One of them in particular, the one that shows the evidence that it worked, basically they decided they couldn't,

and this is a problem with these studies.

And I will give some

some leeway to the authors of these studies in that like you don't have two Connecticut, right?

You don't have Connecticut I and Connecticut II and you pass the assault weapons ban in Connecticut I and everybody, all the same people are there and they all do the same things and we can judge easily which one worked and which one didn't.

You don't have that.

What the authors tried to do and I would say did intentionally to make their numbers look better was to create a what they call a synthetic Connecticut.

Yes, beautiful synthetic Connecticut.

I grew up in regular Connecticut.

I can't imagine what synthetic Connecticut might be be like.

It's got to be a wonderful place to go.

So synthetic Connecticut basically was an amalgamation of Rhode Island and a couple of other areas to make it kind of like Connecticut with the same general demographics and the same general population and all the rest.

The issue, of course, is there was one big shooting in Rhode Island in this time period, which makes up almost the entire difference between synthetic Connecticut and regular Connecticut.

So, I mean, basically what we can say here is that we we defeated, our gun policies have defeated Sim City, but other than that, I don't think we learned all that much.

You guys have been great in sending in a bunch of different claims, and I would encourage you to keep doing it.

This is something we want to do more of.

We want to take these claims, especially these big ones that seem to last forever, and debunk them one by one and give you kind of a collection of videos and podcasts that you can come back to when these things come back in the news.

It's an important part of pushing back against these mainstream media narratives when, you know, they don't have the facts on their side, but they do have this authoritative voice that you're supposed to trust that most people don't have time to go read a bunch of nerdy studies to learn every bit of

the back side of these efforts to change your mind.

I mean, that's what they are.

These are efforts to change your mind.

So you think, man, I mean, there are a lot of these mass shootings, and maybe they are going the wrong way.

This is a real problem in our society.

I started the show today

saying that, telling you about that moment where I saw the news alert, and my heart dropped for a second.

I mean, I can't imagine none of this stuff, none of the stuff we've talked about is going to make a family that has dealt with this feel one little bit better.

When these terrible things happen,

there's no answers.

There's just no answers.

And it is incredibly frustrating to have to talk and tell people, hey, there's nothing we can do.

But

there are some things we can do.

I don't want to say it's hopeless.

It's not going to say that we can't work around the margins to make these things a little bit better.

There's some evidence that some of these things can help in certain ways.

It's not as easy as we want to believe it is, though.

It is really, really hard if you have a free society,

a society with 400 million guns out in the population, a society that allows people to move freely, that doesn't have

a great mental health situation, does not treat that particular ailment very well,

and is a country where, you know, someone like this guy in Uvalde can have no criminal record.

And people will say, well, what about a red flag law?

Well, you know, the red flag law, I would look at what he did and say all sorts of red flags all over the place.

But the person who was closest to him, his best friend, had an extensive interview and he covered a lot of this stuff and said he did all sorts of weird stuff and said weird things.

And I thought he was joking and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

And he ends it with, I never would have thought he was capable of doing something like this.

It is really,

really

hard.

to figure out who is going to do something like this and how to stop them without convicting people of crimes they had not yet committed.

It is really, really hard if we value freedom to stop this stuff completely.

Luckily, the overwhelming majority of people are good.

They actually are good people.

They don't want to commit crimes.

They don't want to hurt others.

They are, generally speaking, good people.

All we can do is do our absolute best to be vigilant and hopefully the events over the past couple of weeks have encouraged some people to say,

You know, that weirdo that I know,

I'm going to bring that up to somebody because I don't know, that went a little bit far.

We already have seen one case like this where a

student said, hey, you know, I think there might be a problem there.

They looked at some of his messages and it looked like he was at least fantasizing about doing something terrible and they caught it early.

That's good.

There are things that we can do, but it's important to understand the facts and it's important to have that foundation of understanding about these issues so that you can't be manipulated.

And more importantly if you're here already you probably are already skeptical about what the mainstream media is telling you but that your friends and other people around you take the time to think about the other side because they're not getting it anywhere else Thank you for joining us.

If you have a second, subscribe to this podcast right now so we can do more of this stuff.

The more you, you know, if you subscribe, if you subscribe here, you subscribe and follow over on YouTube.

That's all free.

If you take a second, it helps us stay on the air.

It helps us encourage the network to give us more time to do these things.

And if you go to blazetv.com slash stew, that's the main place you can go to

to really support the efforts of not only myself, but you see the stuff that Glenn has done, that Steve Dace has done,

Sarah Gonzalez is always getting in fights with Beto O'Rourke.

We're doing all sorts of great things here at Blaze TV.

So we do appreciate your support.

Blazetv.com slash Stew.

The promo code is debunked.

I hope you have a great weekend, and I hope you take some time to yourself to enjoy your family and not get bogged down in the news all weekend.

But this show will always be here when you want to get bogged down again.

We'll see you then.

If you like what you hear, make sure you take a second right now and follow Stu Does America for new episodes every weekday or you just click the link in the show notes.

Martha listens to her favorite band all the time.

In the car,

gym.

Even sleeping.

So when they finally went on tour, Martha bundled her flight and hotel on Expedia to see them live.

She saved so much, she got a seat close enough to actually see and hear them.

Sort of.

You were made to scream from the front row.

We were made to quietly save you more.

Expedia, made to travel.

Savings vary and subject to availability, flight inclusive packages are at all protected.