A couple things.
First of all, cultural bias is most certainly bias, I'll give you that. But bias is a two-way street. The culture shock someone from New York would get from going to San Antonio is exactly the same vice versa. I certainly am not prepared to walk around a community where everyone is armed to teeth, and you I would imagine would be at least a little surprised to see how few people carry (legally, at least) say, on Long Island.
The part of the video you had us start at mentions how a bunch of twitter posts or whatever preaching love and peace will do nothing, and will certainly do nothing to change the way of thinking in Mosques in "your" city. The argument of "words will do nothing" applies so much less to us, and so much more to the garbage politicians sitting in Congress who needed to be filibustered for
15 Hours before they even considered voting on gun control as opposed to the usual "Our thoughts and prayers are with you."
The people placed in the position to make change go out of their way to avoid change because of how laughably bought out they are by the NRA. Should we just out-bid the NRA on our law-makers since the money is what our politicians care about? Not the whole, you know, appropriately handling problems in America thing?
He's also making the assumption that every Mosque in the fucking world is preaching "death to gays and America and everything that isn't us" when it has been made so abundantly clear that those views are not synonymous with anything other than ISIS, which leads me to believe he himself has never attempted to visit a mosque to see how they practice their beliefs.
Do you believe that his "ties" to ISIS led him to do this act? Do you really believe that ISIS, on the other side of the world, influenced this kid at a young enough age to set his moral compass on the murder of scores of homosexuals, and that it wasn't America itself? Do you believe that with 3 or 4 more people with guns in the club would have actually changed the situation at all? The only thing that would have happened is panicked gunfire, missed and potentially misplaced shots. Maybe the killer would not have had all 49 or 50 people to his name, but now there's the chance of someone else potentially missing and being the one bear that weight. They were in a club with flashing lights, full of people. Do you believe that the 3 or 4 people who potentially could have had a gun would have, in the little time that they had, the mental fortitude to shoot the attacker, and only the attacker? Not to mention the chance that the attacker may have gotten lucky and shot one of them first?
I don't disagree that we can't rely on strict pacifism to deal with this threat. But that said, leave the aggression to those who are *properly* trained for it, not some gun-toting idiot who thinks the government is some tyrannical force that they can topple with their cute AR-15. I believe that people who have shown, or can show that they are physically and mentally capable of protecting themselves and others with guns should have them. But don't act like it isn't hilariously easy for anyone to get a gun.
It hasn't been brought up yet I think but I'd prefer to dispell the argument before it does: "Guns don't kill people, People kill people, and they'll get guns no matter what laws you put in place!" Sure, let's legalize heroin and crack/cocaine while we're at it seeing as they'll just get it anyway.
Putting laws in place that make it more difficult for someone to legally acquire a gun inherently makes it more difficult for someone to acquire it illegally, because now black market weapons will be more scarce, and prices will skyrocket.
I don't like guns, I don't. But I know people value them too much for some reason, and I'll accept that and I certainly don't want to take them away, because if we put stricter gun control in place, they should have nothing to worry about unless you yourself have something to hide.