@geordieinjapan if no one had guns then that would be fine but the fact is criminals will always have guns we cant take away all thier guns so i feel obligated to protect myself and all you people who decided not to use your second ammendment right
@molinator2a no they wouldn't. Criminals with guns are a rarity in Europe. Small time crooks just don't have the capacity to get hold of guns. Its really only the serious gangsters who have them and their crimes are usually against each other or the police (who have guns)
@geordieinjapan i noticed two unsettling words in your last statement "rarity" and "usually" readiness to deal with any situation that arises is essential no matter how likely or unlikely this situation seems to be to you
@geordieinjapan The only way to do that is by using the guns of the gov't to take away everyones guns. So you haven't really ended gun ownership, but just monopolized it into the hands of the most murderous institution that has ever existed, the state.
@ShatterNWO um...wtf? Thats not how it worked at all. Laws were tightened and people warned about it, they were given a chance to hand in their guns or license them. Even after the initial period is over the police always have amnesties.
And the state the most murderous institution ever existed? LOL!!!!! ROFLAMO!! anarchism is just stupid. Far more murderous than even the worst of states.
@geordieinjapan Which country are you talking about? You also stated that nobody should have guns, which is what I was responding to. So 250 million ppl being killed by their own gov't in the 20th century alone, not counting ppl killed by foreign gov'ts, is funny to you? Anarchy has never existed on a massive scale, so how is it more murderous than the state? Which by definition is immoral since it steals (taxes) to fund it's operation. And feel free to bring up Somalia.
@ShatterNWO most countries with decent gun control laws. It has happened many times in the world. The example I'm most familiar with is in the UK. 250 million died you say? no clue where you got that number but whatever, with anarchy you'd be looking at billions dead, not millions. Just look at Somalia, the Congo recently, pre war China, etc....
And taxation is stealing? LOL!!!!! Anarchism is just hilarious. Taxation is funding the means by which you can get money in the first place.
@geordieinjapan Just google 250 million ppl killed by their own gov't in 20th century, it's a fact. Pre war China was not anarchy, they had a central state. Congo is debatable. But Somalia has had gains in standard of living, life expectancy, lower infant mortality. Still a shit hole, but the former central gov't put them back in the stone age. Of course taxation is theft, if I refuse to pay the IRS, they take me to jail. Using coercion or force to get something is theft.
@ShatterNWO taxation is theft- no, thats just wrong. No arguing. YOU are thief for not paying taxes- taking what the government is selling (the conditions in which to make money, roads, education, etc....) and not paying for it. googling- it brings up youtube comments as the top result...hmm.... pre-war china had some areas under a internationally recognised government but much of the country was in anarchy and, as is inevitable under anarchy, ruled by warlords. Which sucked.
@ShatterNWO The Congo- not too much these days but during the civil war a lot of areas were in a state of anarchy. It was not a nice place to be. Somalia- I don't know where you got those numbers, it has gotten so bad it has dropped off the bottom of the human development charts, the anarchy meaning data can't even be gathered. It was the civil war and the anarchy it brought which put the country in the stone age,
@geordieinjapan You can argue that the theft is necessary, but simply denying it as theft is denying reality. Just because some1 robs you in a police uniform rather than a ski mask does not change this fact.
@linuslillen01 Exactly, the war on drugs and prostitution is a huge reason for a lot of the gun crimes in America. Gangs shoot each other up because they can't legally protect their activity. This is what prohibition did in Capone's days.
The woman at 8:11 seems awfully at ease with the thought of shooting someone. She doesn't seem like a particularly intelligient person. The whole "they can't complain if they're dead" line of thought is quite disturbing.
If you think banning guns is going to prevent criminals from getting guns, you're crazy. If you ban guns, you take them away from the law abiding citizens. The criminals will always find ways to have guns, just like they find way to get illegal drugs. Gun control only hurts the good people.
@jackfn1234 And if you ban nuclear weapons from the public, only criminals will have nuclear weapons. Lets sell those at walmart too, that'll solve everything.
@guineapiggyman From the person who can't seem to type properly, I feel safe against your accusations. ;)
Clearly, the argument that weapons should be available to everyone on the basis that - if banned - only criminals will have them is not universally valid. Else it would apply to nuclear weapons. There is therefore a line where a weapon becomes so destructive that allowing it constitutes a threat to everyone and should be locked down. Nukes are easier to lock down than guns of course.
@Stairc guns are hand held. nukes need huge silos and complicated computers to run and launch. yeah- i can really see the crips using those to steal crack money. moron
As I said in my last comment, Nukes are far easier to lock down and prevent people from getting in the first place, but this is immaterial to the principle under discussion (unless you're claiming that we really should ban guns, but since it'd be hard to make sure that they didn't get on the black market it's not feasible). We COULD offer them to anyone who will pay, but we don't. Why?
@Stairc Several criteria needs to be met for any item to be readily available to masses of people besides legality. When you say clearly that's wrong, else nukes would be readily available to masses of people, you are forgetting about all those other things. Cost, complexity, availability, ease of use, etc. Nuclear weapons are highly expensive, complex, difficult to manufacture, etc. Just because the Ferrarri Italia 458 is "legal", doesn't mean everyone has one.
@noderunner9 You misunderstand. Clearly that argument as given alone is wrong (if you outlaw weapon X only bad people will have weapon X). There are, of course conflating factors.
However, many governments and even some corporations could plausibly have the resources to purchase nuclear weapons. Should they be sold to any who can afford them?
@Stairc Okay I think I did misunderstand you, re-reading your previous comments. Your position doesn't seem to be that all guns should be banned, but that a practical line should be drawn as to what kinds of guns should be legally available, on the basis that more destructive weapons have much higher risks. Am I describing your position fairly? I don't understand what you are implying with your socratic method comment, but I'm not interested in a semantics debate if that is your meaning.
@noderunner9 1) My position is that some highly destructive guns should indeed be banned , as they are unreasonably dangerous and allow more harm than good (for example, a grenade launcher or a machine gun is perfect for mass-murder, not so good at defending your house against a single burglar). Whether all guns should be banned or not is something I don't think we have enough evidence to decide yet.
2) Socratic method - asking questions to further the discussion in this case - and appropriate.
@Stairc Since you haven't made up your mind about all guns, let's talk about what you have made your mind up about. You gave some examples, but can you explain to me what would be the criteria for qualifying as "unreasonably dangerous"? Also, can you explain to me why (presumably) a government official is more qualified to determine this for all people, instead of having individuals decide for themselves? What makes a legislator so much smarter than me at deciding what guns I can safely handle?
@noderunner9 1) It would be impossible for me to give anything more than a rule of thumb as per what unreasonably dangerous means - but any weapon that excells at killing massive amounts of people at once and/or does significant collateral damage to the surounding area (hard to argue that you're defending your home when you have to blow up a good portion of it while using the weapon)
2) Sure, I'll explain that when you explain why it's a good idea to not let terrorists decide if they have nukes
@Stairc On your point #1, do you not see a problem with legislation that is loose, vague, and indeterminate? I'm not a fan. It leaves room for law makers to abuse their power and makes it difficult for people operating within that grey area to know whether or not they are going to get in trouble.
@Stairc As far as your point #2, it seems like you are going in circles now. I thought we already established that this line of reasoning is a logical fallacy. I do not agree with the line of logic that being skeptical of gun bans means that I would also on principle have to accept that we should allow "terrorists" to have nuclear weapons. This is an absurd notion. I do not think it's a good idea to allow terrorists to have nukes, nor do I understand why you bring it up.
The reason the government it better at deciding who should get a gun than the individual is because the mass murderers all want guns. If mass murderers didn't want guns, there would be no problem to begin with. If anyone can walk into wallmart and buy an unreasonably dangerous weapon - it's way too easy for any crackpot to get a gun. Or if it's on your wall and your troubled kid picks it up.
@Stairc You are answering a different question than what I asked you. I asked how a government official is better at deciding which guns are "too dangerous" for me to operate as opposed to other guns, not if a government official is good at determining which person has a criminal background. Those are two separate questions. Your earlier argument presumes that as a law abiding citizen, I should not be able to own a machine gun because the gun is too dangerous. How do you know enough about me?
@noderunner9 You seem to be missing practical execution.
Unreasonably dangerous weapons (my term for weapons that excel at mass-murder) should not be easily available to anyone with a credit card and cash. Why? Because there is little upside in personal defense, if any, and MASSIVE downside by making them easily available to everyone. The general public shouldn't be trusted to regulate themselves, because irresponsible people by definition are irresponsible and likely won't regulate themselves.
@Stairc You are dodging my question like a politician, but fine, let's talk about the point you just brought up. You said that the general public cannot be trusted to regulate themselves because sometimes there are irresponsible people. Does this mean that, by definition, there are no irresponsible people in government? What makes the regulators so flawless? And how does this gun restriction help when the people who would actually use them for "mass murder" simply ignore the law to get them?
@noderunner9 Sure regulators aren't flawless. But we have more control over who becomes a law-maker. We know who they are, their backgrounds can be checked into extensively, etc.
Your argument is just strange. It can be applied to ANY law with equal oddness. Why trust the regulators to regulate ANY behavior then? Why trust them to make laws against rape and murder? Shouldn't we just regulate ourselves? After all, the irresponsible people will just ignore the laws anyways - right?
@Stairc I have zero control over who becomes a law-maker. In the free market, I almost always get exactly what I pay for. But in government, nobody that I've ever voted for has ever won that election.
And yes, my argument can be applied to any regulation. Why is skepticism of regulation strange? I recognize the need to have government protect our rights, so your comment about rape and murder is a bit of a straw-man. But skepticism of regulation beyond the basics is easily justified.
@noderunner9 Ah, but who decides what are your rights and which to protect? The government. Who decides that rape is worth making illegal and watching TV should be legal? The government. If you want regulations, you need to have a regulatory body. That's how it works.
And yes, your officials might not win. That's because this is a democracy, not your tyranny.
@Stairc Wrong. This is a nation governed by the consent of the people. Rape and murder violate our rights because our ancestors fought and died for those rights. You talk as if we were a colony of rapists and murderers until an all-wise and benevolent government came along and showed us the light. That's nonsense. We demanded our rights and we fought for them.
@noderunner9 Many of our ancestors fought and died in defense of slavery. So, slavery is a good thing too?
And you're right, in a free market everyone can get what they want. Including a terrorist who buys a mass-murder weapon. Heck, let's take it a step further and have no laws at all. That way absolutely everyone can do exactly what they want. Isn't that an awesome idea?
Or... Maybe the whole point is to stop some people from doing things in the first place...
@Stairc Why are you taking everything I say out of context and building a straw-man argument? Was I making the point that *anything* anyone fought a war over is a "good" thing? No, of course not. I was making the point that government did not come along and give us our rights, we had to fight for them. I was making that point because you claimed that those rights came from government, which they don't. Slavery has nothing to do with anything.
@noderunner9 And for the last time, I'm not arguing for "no laws at all". That is also clearly not what I'm advocating. If you are just going to ignore my position and make things up on my behalf that are clearly absurd, then there is no point my having a conversation with you. If you are interested in actually trying to understand the opposing point of view with an open mind, the lets move this conversation out of limited YT comments to a place where we can can have a more efficient exchange.
@noderunner9 Your argument is a classic special pleading fallacy. You're fine with government regulation in many cases, but then in order to question gun regulation you feel compelled to question the entire ability of government to regulate anything and everything.
The whole point is that we don't WANT to let individuals regulate themselves on matters where their actions could cause other serious arm. That's why we have driving laws, rape laws, murder etc. You can't see this?
@Stairc Are you unable to think in terms of trade-offs at all? Everything seems to be either completely one way or another with you. Either I must accept that gun regulation is good, or I must be pro-rape and murder. That's insane. You are so focused on trying to win an argument that you are missing an opportunity to understand. Just slow down and think for a second what the outcome would be if we didn't "let individuals regulate themselves on matters where their actions could cause others harm"
@noderunner9 It would mean that doctors could not practice medicine. It would mean that we could not build power plants, and nobody would be able to fly a plane. Just about every action you take in life comes with risks, and you could potentially harm someone with just about anything you do in life. But restricting everyones' freedom to do anything because it could potentially cause somebody harm makes things even worse.
@noderunner9 Treating everyone as if they are already a criminal is not a solution. Treating law-abiding people as if they are already criminals will not stop the real criminals from doing bad things. It never will. All it will accomplish is restricting the freedom of non-criminals. Because guess what, criminals break the law! Do you think forcing everyone to drive 25MPH all the time will stop automobile fatalities? Heck, if its good for safety, why stop there? Why not 5MPH?
@noderunner9 But there is nothing I will be able to say. You simply don't like guns so any loss in freedom doesn't personally affect you, so you don't care. Does it increase safety? That doesn't really matter to you, because it's no skin off your back. Better restrict it just in case, since you don't care anyway. Anything you don't like? Ban it in the name of "safety", because you can always make the argument that something isn't "safe" enough for you so you can have your way.
@noderunner9 No, you simply do not understand the implications of your own argument. You must provide a REASON why we should trust the killers to self-regulate themselves when it comes to buying mass-murder weapons but NOT trust the rapists to self-regulate themselves when it comes to raping women. The argument you've advanced can be applied with equal validity (or lack thereof) to all regulation. Unless you want to argue that all regulation is bad, the argument doesn't help you.
@Stairc It's obvious to me that you are only interested in hearing your own voice and trying to make yourself seem clever by trying to "get me" with logic traps. Have fun with that. Maybe one day you'll grow out of just trying to win debates with silly semantic nonsense and you'll actually start caring about real things. Until that day comes, I'm not interested in talking with you. But I'll always defend your right to be as close-minded as you wish. Good luck in life.
@noderunner9 It's a simple question. If you claim that your argument is being misrepresented, just answer the question. What reason do we have to trust that killers will self-regulate themselves and not purchase weapons of mass murder (since you're so eager to have people self-regulate themselves when it comes to gun purchases) but not trust rapists to self-regulate themselves? If you can't provide one, then your argument is just an excuse because you want to be able to buy a gun.
@Stairc You are asking me to defend and argument that I am not making. That's the problem. I'm not defending "killers" rights to buy machine guns. What is the difference between a "killer" and a regular person? A "killer" is someone that is known to have murdered someone. Am I advocating that convicted murderers be allowed to purchase machine guns? Am I? Of course not, and I never have. Yet you frame your question as if I did. And you'll respond to this in the same way no doubt.
@noderunner9 I'm saying that unless you have a criminal background, there should be no problem with you buying a machine gun. People who are not criminal should not be punished because of crimes that other people committed. This is very different from "trusting killers to self-regulate". The fact that try to pass this off as my position shows how immature you are being in this conversation. Why would I want known murderers to have machine guns? That's nonsense.
@noderunner9 I'm saying that restricting LAW ABIDING CITIZENS from buying guns does not stop "KILLERS" from getting guns. That is not the same as advocating that "killers" should be able to buy machine guns.
Think of the possible upside of making grenade launchers easily accessible to anyone with a credit card. Now think of the possible downsides to grenade launchers being easily, legally purchasable. Every sick kid who goes into his father's gun-room, every nut who hasn't hurt anyone YET but is ready to blow away his school... Every first-time offender or old freak with a bone to pick... Easy access.
@noderunner9 So, you're fine with some gun regulation... Run by regulators. I understand your position, however the argument you give to why you want to be allowed to purchase mass-murder weapons yourself is "why should the government know better than me what weapons I should get to own?". This argument is too wide-spreading, since it equally attacks all regulations of everything. I know YOU aren't trying to apply it to everything, but the argument is still equally flawed.
@Stairc It's a *question*, not an *argument* when I asked you how a government official knows better than me. You are reading too much into my question because you think that's the argument I'm making, but it's not. What I'm trying to illustrate, is that the government official doesn't know who is going to turn out to be a murderer and who isn't. The regulator isn't going to know ahead of time which 1 person out of the 50,000 gun owners is going to use that gun to commit a crime.
@noderunner9 So the regulator thinks "no problem, I'll just stop anyone from being allowed to have the gun, that way I don't need to know which person it actually is that is going to hurt someone". But it doesn't work that way. What ends up really happening, is that all the people who respect the law, but desire to own a machine gun aren't allowed. But the 1 person who doesn't care about the law and wants to hurt people, just goes and gets a machine gun by *breaking the law*.
@noderunner9 The effect of this is that the crime still takes place, but everyone else who plays by the rules is punished anyway. I think where you are getting confused is that you are misunderstanding my position to be: "allowing everyone to have machine guns will prevent murderers from getting machine guns". No. I'm not offering a solution to murderers getting machine guns. I don't have a solution for that. I'm simply saying that neither of us have a solution, so let's at least have freedom.
@noderunner9 Banning things doesn't solve the problem. So let's let law abiding citizens have their freedom, since taking away that freedom isn't solving the problem anyway. In your scenario, we have bad people killing, and less freedom for good people. In my scenario, we have bad people still killing, but more freedom for good people. Neither scenario is perfect. But one is better than the other.
@Stairc And you know full well that I wasn't advocating for a tyranny under my control. I was illustrating that under markets, everybody can get what they want, which works better than democratizing everything, where the majority gets what they want at the expense of the minority. You probably don't care about this, unless you find yourself within that minority, then I'm sure you start caring. If you want to talk about this reasonably, let me know and we can set something up.
Who will obey stricter gun laws or a complete ban on ownership of firearms? Only the people we don't have to worry about in the first place. The people we want to keep firearms from will still find ways to obtain firearms regardless of how strict the laws get. Hell outlaw firearms completely and you'll still see them being used to commit crimes. Criminals are criminals for a reason, they don't live by the law. Criminals will still have firearms as they are the tool of their trade.
@dsrtdawg1 And ones that have clamped down on guns also all became tyrannical regimes? Engage your brain on that my friend.
Some countries with strict gun laws have much less violence than us. Some have more. There are conflating factors and no one thing is at the core of all violence.
@Stairc You've already failed ...You had to use ALL to support your argument and then had to use some to promote the benefits comparing apples and oranges. Nations and regions are different. The point of the matter is don't impose your ideals on me by taking away my right to self defense.
@Stairc Afraid you showed your colors...crime exploding whenever guns have been banned...you have your agenda and your feelings matter over reality. I tried to give you a chance to research the facts ...you failed.
@dsrtdawg1 Are you claiming that tyrannical regimes became instated whenever guns have been banned? Somehow when you look at reality, it seems like what you say is almost not true. ;)
As for crime exploding whenever guns have been banned, this is simply not true. Many european countries have stricter gun laws than we do and much less gun-related crime.
@Stairc You're really stupid aren't you? You read things 180 degrees from how written. Tyrannical regimes impose gun law....not the other way around. You compare apples and oranges. European history is fraught with divine kingdoms and the right of the masses to be armed was heavily restricted unless they were being sent to seize lands and treasure.
@dsrtdawg1 1 and 2) You take things too seriously =)
3) Irrelevant. You are claiming that gun control is the first step of a tyrannical regime. Whether crime goes up or not is irrelevant to whether there is a tyrannical regime. In fact, Anarchy is complete freedom and would likely result in massive amounts of assault.
@Stairc Actually, anarchism is about debunking illegitimate authority in society, which allows for free and non-violent people to associate and live. on the Other hand, murder on the largest scale, theft on the largest scale and rape on the largest scale are all things that occur in Wars. wars are massive chaotic storms of death so large that they only could have been formed and organized on both sides by Large governments
Anarchism is about non-aggression. war is crime on a large scale
@Ravengaurd6 lol, please enlighten me as to how having NO government of any kind doesn't give people absolute freedom to do whatever they want to eachother? Which of course would be a bad thing.
Regardless,, whether this fits your bill of, "absolute freedom" or not is beside the point. It is irrelevant to my argument.
all things being equal, without a government, people only do to others what they are willing to risk having done to themselves. during pitched battles,violent crimes or mob attacks those involved are willing to kill and destroy because they are willing to risk being killed or destroyed. for the individual it is the fear of retaliation that will check him. but of course people can be like governments and eliminate risk through force of numbers.
@Ravengaurd6 No, that's not at all true. A rich and powerful person will gladly order thugs to rape someone without worrying about retaliation - especially if he expects that the only thing keeping a neighbor from attacking HIM is if he gets to them first and murders them. Fear of retaliation doesn't stop bullies. It takes authority figures to step in.
@Stairc That doesn't really debunk what I stated. people can remove risk through sheer force of numbers. that also counts as a leader using other people to carry out violence in their name. To stop a bully it doesn't require a person with a uniform or a nice title, it requires a sufficient amount of force to deter or destroy an aggressor. if I own a loaded gun, with or without a badge or a uniform, that gun still discharge metal rounds at speeds that rend flesh and bone.
@Stairc Proper parenting is key to preventing gun related accidents. If you can teach your kid to safely walk across the street, to be properly toilet-trained, to stay away from broken glass on the ground, and not to talk to strangers, then you can easily teach them to safely handle a firearm, or to not ever touch one (your choice).
@WenchesOfRedemption Abstinence is also a surefire way to avoid underage pregnancy and STDs. However, despite how much we talk about it, studies show that teens don't listen.
Likewise, proper parenting would solve all our problems. But we have little control over how an individual raises their children. We do have control over selling machine guns to anyone with a credit card.
@Stairc Strange. My 2 kids know not to touch my guns (15 to be precise) around the house. I've never had an accident.
If you're trying to tell me that armed self-defense is rare, then you are talking to the wrong person. Firearms are used to stop crime 2.5 million times each year. If you actually paid close attention to reliable statistics, you would find that cases similar to your description are extremely scarce.
@Stairc In addition, the fact that you mentioned that there are common sales of "machine guns" really shows how little you actually know about firearms. Are you familiar with the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986?
Semi automatic rifles by definition are not machine guns. They operate and function completely different. No legal automatic firearm under the FOPA of 1986 has ever been used in a crime.
I live in Britain, where the gun laws are obviously a LOT stricter, and I used to think that that was how it should be (Naturally, I don't like things that are designed to kill.) This, however, has changed my mind. Prohibiting something immediately opens up a black market for it, and we know what sort of people thrive on black market business. I don't think, however, that a gun is something you should own with pride. Surely you would only be using a gun in a horrific and dangerous situation?
No matter how we feel about our community . WE MUST PROTECT OUR LIBERTY . I know it seems crazy to many . Things are not always as they seem . In a very important big picture . The rights must stand . Or please leave this nation . And let People that believe in freedom have it back. Don't be harsh on my view .. Just please give the moment to see this side. Open a history book .. Nazi Germany seems very similar at this moment . Ouch .. I went there!
The whole argument about guns and crime is completely irrelevant in regards to the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment was not written to protect a right to keep a gun for self defense. The right to protect life and property was already established under common law. The Founders did not believe this right needed protection. The 2A protects the right to keep and bear arms with military use. While it is an individual right to own, the teeth is in the collective right to bear.
Okay gun control doesn't work. What I think people need to focus on more is the Border Patrol. People traffic guns in and out of this country. If we made our border patrol stronger as well as our law enforcement we could keep a lot of shit from coming in to our country and a lot of shit from coming out! After all the first place to turn to whether guns are illegal or not is the black market. Law abiding citizens would still have their guns and the criminals would have less of them.
I don't think america will ever understand how fucking gun crazy they appear to the rest of us.
You want guns no fucking problem you can even call it your right go fucking nuts. But to say guns make you safer and provide some sort of security is complete bullshit. America is the only country where individual people need guns to feel safe.
@Stairc There is a borderline difference between firearms and weapons of mass destruction. What I meant with "Guns don't kill people. People kill people" logic, it's supposed to mean that guns don't pull their own trigger and shoots people. It's the one holding the gun with their finger on the trigger that shoots the victim. After all who are the ones who do the crimes? Criminals, not the guns.
@AnonymousReborn Do nuclear weapons pull their own triggers too?
I agree there's a difference between nuclear weapons and guns. But saying, "it's not the gun's fault" doesn't help your argument. Having easy access to a machine gun, or nuclear warhead, makes it much easier to kill a lot of people than otherwise.
@AnonymousReborn I'll respond to that. But first, do you now see why the, "guns don't kill people, people do" argument is invalid? That is, unless you're for everyone having control over nuclear weapons, anthrax, smallpox and much more. After all, none of these things pull their own triggers.
What about a poor unsuspecting convenience store clerk, who hardly have any time to respond even if he carries a gun, when a shit head with a gun barges in?
What about pissed off kids in school, going after other kids?
US should follow Canadian gun control laws. Canada does not ban guns, but they also make it difficult for Civilians, criminals and crazies to get guns.
Canada DOES ban guns you fucking retard. AK-47s were banned in Canada because they looked "evil" and had a notorious reputation, while VZ-58s (a better weapon) are still readily available.
Guns kill people. Statistics say it all. When people talk for guns, they just focus on crazies going after other people in public places. People argue that they need to protect themselves. Lame excuse to have a gun. Is your life worth that much? or Does it mean that lives of others are worthless? Selfish
1. What about countless number of homicides happening across the US every other day? It shows that the enemy is within not outside. What about a disgruntled shithead killing his own family?
When people say that gun control does not stop criminals from getting guns?
well, as long as Guns are available, there will be crime. Door to door search is the best way to go, to remove all firearms possessed by stupid ass civilians !! no wonder criminals get away with illegal weapons.
After so many deaths in the US due to guns, it is time for a complete ban. Half baked, eye wash rules don't cut it anymore/.
It can be done, if there is will. Politicians should get their act together.
@kashsoldier Well what about the second amendment? It clearly states that the right of the people to own guns shall NEVER be infringed upon. I guess we should also ban everything else that can kill people then too. Good-bye knives, sticks, rocks, slippery bathroom floors, etc. There will always be guns, and unless a group of pseudo-socialist hippies decide to burn down the National Archives, I think we'll be ok.
@kashsoldier Right so naturally since drugs are illegal, no one gets drugs and there's not a multi billion dollar industry doing the very thing you claim impossible....
Guns will be available regardless of any law, a little thing called black market exists for this very purpose.
Like I mentioned in a earlier comment to you, Thailand has way worse gun crime than the US, yet guns are highly restrictive there. Gun control is not crime control.
@Stairc Yes pretty much. That's not to say that there shouldn't be some oversight on the people owning things of that nature. That oversight doesn't need to be of the government nor does it need to be restrictive like government oversight is.
You don't think the US state doesn't owns barrels of the stuff. If they are capable of keeping it why aren't non-state people able?
@Stairc Yes that's what I meant by it should have oversight, that everyone should have a nuke.
Seriously though, no. I was rather explicit that it should have oversight, as in some collection of people giving their mark of approval to anyone owning a nuke, or any other weapon of mass destruction.
@crazypants88 So you think there should be nuke-control... It's fine to have a nuke, so long as... What? An collection of people say, "sure, let's give this private citizen a nuclear warhead or vial of a disease that, if smashed on the sidewalk, will kill 10% of the people in America".
@Stairc Yes because ignoring these things will make them disapear. Nukes exists, the knowledge to create them exists. Therefore the threat of nukes is a constant. The best deterrence against a nuclear attack is mutually assured destruction, meaning that if you engage in nuclear war with someone you stand to lose just as much as your opponent does IF he has nukes.
Also is it any more feasible when a state keeps nukes or anthrax?
At least a private citizen has never nuked someone.
@kashsoldier You're a goddamn moron. Does banning guns remove all guns from existence? No. There is and still would be a black market for them. So congratulations, you are the violent criminal's best friend. You support de-arming law abiding citizens, leaving only the government and violent criminals with them. Also, fuck you. Owning a gun does not violate anyone else's right, so therefore I have a right to own one.
@pinkkfloydd Good for you, guns are bad, therefore everyone should have them. Your solution to gun violence is to what? add more guns, and make them legal?
Enjoy your rights to be a fucking idiot. I have no problem if you want to own a gun, but stop pretending like everyone owning guns is a good thing, that's just stupid.
In every State that has enacted 'shall-issue' concealed carry permits the crime rate ahs dropped, every single time it has been done. Crime rates have gone up where guns have been more restricted.
@RetSquid I wasn't disputing that, but at what cost? I was merely remarking at how laughable it is that america throws it's gunlaws around as if there proud of the fact that they need guns in the hands of 99% of it's citizens to feel safe, or worse as some sort of right. when everywhere else in the world manages crime, and gun laws without having to arm the hicks.
More guns = less crime = Highest rate of gun injuries/incidents in the developed world.
Our gun rights insure that if our government gets out of hand, we can take it back. And keeping our inherent rights of self defense. What is the source for your injuries/incidents claim?
@RetSquid Sorry busy over the holidays. You can say that but you know it's bullshit government hasn't feared the people they govern in a long time, guns won't change that. I can't recall the site i went to look for statistics on the stats for the injuries claim but in all honesty i don't care enough to check if you want guns have them, i'm not going to impose on your right. as i've said before i just think it's ridiculous.
Essentially it's just not something i care to debate about.
@RetSquid Ohh i apologize, i was under the impression that youtube was a video sharing sight, where people would come to view content they found interesting for whatever reasons they choose. I had no idea this was rigidly policed forum of political ideas and commentary. So excuse me, fucktard.
LOL!!! You are the one saying everyone is nuts for owning a gun. And yes, YouTube is for sharing video content, but if you leave a comment, be prepared to back up your views or be called out on it, silly boy.
@RetSquid I don't have to back up my own opinion dickhead, yeah i can think its silly for an entire nation to somehow feel safer if everyone had a gun, but as i said i wouldn't infringe on anyone's right nor vote against such a thing you want a gun great, i won't stop you but i happen to think it a bit excessive to claim it's a right to own a gun.
You didn't call em out on anything just made yourself look like a unreasonable douche, so fuck you, end of discussion.
This entire Nation is safer with a gun. More gun=less crime. Even in England this was true, now they have more home invasions and killings with knives, bats, whatever. But banning guns didn't make it any safer, it made it more dangerous.
We have a right to own a firearm just as we have a right to free speech, both are natural rights a person gets from God, not any man.
BTW, you are the one who just shit all over himself with your off-the-wall comments.
@RetSquid If i knew you were such a simple-minded person i never would have responded in the first place, for that i apologize.
you have a very basic and flawed view on rights, and your assertion that more guns = less crime is also wrong i never claimed that banning guns would make things safer. but then again you would have to create a straw-man to assert your ridiculous points and make them look reasonable.
This is a waste of time and this last message was just a courtesy. Goodbye
No, the assertion of more guns/less crime is backed up by years of research over decades of information. You think people who own guns are nuts, the facts are that they are far less likely to be involved in criminal activity than non-gun owners. Owners of a concealed carry permits commit murder at the rate of 1/182nd of the general population, that is per capita you are 182 times more likely to be killed by a non-CCW holder. People should be scared of you.
@RetSquid Ofcourse how silly of me, Me someone whom does not oppose the individuals right to carry a weapon but merely remarks that as a matter personal opinion i find it unnecessary. is much more terryfying than the thought of over 300million people owning firearms.
Yeah solid logic there. Your trying to convince me of something that is simply a matter of personal opinion for me? you realise how futile that is right?
I do not claim to impose on your right to own a gun.
Bullshit videos have the best YouTube fights.
BatmanOneOhOne 4 days ago
lol. of course not having a gun in a country full of people with guns is less dangerous. how about nobody has one though? Much safer.
geordieinjapan 4 days ago
@geordieinjapan if no one had guns then that would be fine but the fact is criminals will always have guns we cant take away all thier guns so i feel obligated to protect myself and all you people who decided not to use your second ammendment right
molinator2a 1 day ago
@molinator2a no they wouldn't. Criminals with guns are a rarity in Europe. Small time crooks just don't have the capacity to get hold of guns. Its really only the serious gangsters who have them and their crimes are usually against each other or the police (who have guns)
geordieinjapan 1 day ago
@geordieinjapan i noticed two unsettling words in your last statement "rarity" and "usually" readiness to deal with any situation that arises is essential no matter how likely or unlikely this situation seems to be to you
molinator2a 1 day ago
also think about terrorists...
molinator2a 1 day ago
@geordieinjapan The only way to do that is by using the guns of the gov't to take away everyones guns. So you haven't really ended gun ownership, but just monopolized it into the hands of the most murderous institution that has ever existed, the state.
ShatterNWO 12 hours ago
@ShatterNWO um...wtf? Thats not how it worked at all. Laws were tightened and people warned about it, they were given a chance to hand in their guns or license them. Even after the initial period is over the police always have amnesties.
And the state the most murderous institution ever existed? LOL!!!!! ROFLAMO!! anarchism is just stupid. Far more murderous than even the worst of states.
geordieinjapan 11 hours ago
@geordieinjapan Which country are you talking about? You also stated that nobody should have guns, which is what I was responding to. So 250 million ppl being killed by their own gov't in the 20th century alone, not counting ppl killed by foreign gov'ts, is funny to you? Anarchy has never existed on a massive scale, so how is it more murderous than the state? Which by definition is immoral since it steals (taxes) to fund it's operation. And feel free to bring up Somalia.
ShatterNWO 11 hours ago
@ShatterNWO most countries with decent gun control laws. It has happened many times in the world. The example I'm most familiar with is in the UK. 250 million died you say? no clue where you got that number but whatever, with anarchy you'd be looking at billions dead, not millions. Just look at Somalia, the Congo recently, pre war China, etc....
And taxation is stealing? LOL!!!!! Anarchism is just hilarious. Taxation is funding the means by which you can get money in the first place.
geordieinjapan 10 hours ago
@geordieinjapan Just google 250 million ppl killed by their own gov't in 20th century, it's a fact. Pre war China was not anarchy, they had a central state. Congo is debatable. But Somalia has had gains in standard of living, life expectancy, lower infant mortality. Still a shit hole, but the former central gov't put them back in the stone age. Of course taxation is theft, if I refuse to pay the IRS, they take me to jail. Using coercion or force to get something is theft.
ShatterNWO 8 hours ago
@ShatterNWO taxation is theft- no, thats just wrong. No arguing. YOU are thief for not paying taxes- taking what the government is selling (the conditions in which to make money, roads, education, etc....) and not paying for it. googling- it brings up youtube comments as the top result...hmm.... pre-war china had some areas under a internationally recognised government but much of the country was in anarchy and, as is inevitable under anarchy, ruled by warlords. Which sucked.
geordieinjapan 8 hours ago
@ShatterNWO The Congo- not too much these days but during the civil war a lot of areas were in a state of anarchy. It was not a nice place to be. Somalia- I don't know where you got those numbers, it has gotten so bad it has dropped off the bottom of the human development charts, the anarchy meaning data can't even be gathered. It was the civil war and the anarchy it brought which put the country in the stone age,
geordieinjapan 8 hours ago
@geordieinjapan You can argue that the theft is necessary, but simply denying it as theft is denying reality. Just because some1 robs you in a police uniform rather than a ski mask does not change this fact.
ShatterNWO 8 hours ago
antigun liberals are un-american idiots i hope they die by a knife.
warduckythe1st 1 week ago
@warduckythe1st Why do United States have higher homocide rates than Most European Countries?
linuslillen01 2 days ago
@linuslillen01 we are much tougher on drugs and prostitution than most European countries.
ShatterNWO 12 hours ago
@ShatterNWO prostitution and mild drugs is legal in some european countries, most notably Holland.
linuslillen01 11 hours ago
@linuslillen01 Exactly, the war on drugs and prostitution is a huge reason for a lot of the gun crimes in America. Gangs shoot each other up because they can't legally protect their activity. This is what prohibition did in Capone's days.
ShatterNWO 11 hours ago
@ShatterNWO hmm... makes sence...
linuslillen01 9 hours ago
Why would you call a cop? Maybe because they have guns!
david1982129 1 week ago
The woman at 8:11 seems awfully at ease with the thought of shooting someone. She doesn't seem like a particularly intelligient person. The whole "they can't complain if they're dead" line of thought is quite disturbing.
195ashes 1 week ago
I have to wonder whether a person actually deserves to be shot if they attempt to rob you or break into your house.
195ashes 1 week ago
lol Mabel rocks
bloodstone256 2 weeks ago
if you are enough of a moron to keep your loaded hand gun in a childs reach dont blame it on the gun.
biggunsnstuff 2 weeks ago
If you think banning guns is going to prevent criminals from getting guns, you're crazy. If you ban guns, you take them away from the law abiding citizens. The criminals will always find ways to have guns, just like they find way to get illegal drugs. Gun control only hurts the good people.
jackfn1234 2 weeks ago
@jackfn1234 And if you ban nuclear weapons from the public, only criminals will have nuclear weapons. Lets sell those at walmart too, that'll solve everything.
Stairc 2 weeks ago
@Stairc Ya, I'm pretty sure that doesn't apply. Nice try though.
jackfn1234 2 weeks ago
@jackfn1234 Oh? And why doesn't that apply?
Stairc 2 weeks ago
@Stairc god you r stupid
guineapiggyman 2 weeks ago
@guineapiggyman From the person who can't seem to type properly, I feel safe against your accusations. ;)
Clearly, the argument that weapons should be available to everyone on the basis that - if banned - only criminals will have them is not universally valid. Else it would apply to nuclear weapons. There is therefore a line where a weapon becomes so destructive that allowing it constitutes a threat to everyone and should be locked down. Nukes are easier to lock down than guns of course.
Stairc 2 weeks ago
@Stairc guns are hand held. nukes need huge silos and complicated computers to run and launch. yeah- i can really see the crips using those to steal crack money. moron
guineapiggyman 2 weeks ago
@guineapiggyman Ah, more insults.
As I said in my last comment, Nukes are far easier to lock down and prevent people from getting in the first place, but this is immaterial to the principle under discussion (unless you're claiming that we really should ban guns, but since it'd be hard to make sure that they didn't get on the black market it's not feasible). We COULD offer them to anyone who will pay, but we don't. Why?
Stairc 2 weeks ago
@Stairc Several criteria needs to be met for any item to be readily available to masses of people besides legality. When you say clearly that's wrong, else nukes would be readily available to masses of people, you are forgetting about all those other things. Cost, complexity, availability, ease of use, etc. Nuclear weapons are highly expensive, complex, difficult to manufacture, etc. Just because the Ferrarri Italia 458 is "legal", doesn't mean everyone has one.
noderunner9 2 weeks ago
@noderunner9 You misunderstand. Clearly that argument as given alone is wrong (if you outlaw weapon X only bad people will have weapon X). There are, of course conflating factors.
However, many governments and even some corporations could plausibly have the resources to purchase nuclear weapons. Should they be sold to any who can afford them?
You have to love the socratic method.
Stairc 1 week ago
@Stairc Okay I think I did misunderstand you, re-reading your previous comments. Your position doesn't seem to be that all guns should be banned, but that a practical line should be drawn as to what kinds of guns should be legally available, on the basis that more destructive weapons have much higher risks. Am I describing your position fairly? I don't understand what you are implying with your socratic method comment, but I'm not interested in a semantics debate if that is your meaning.
noderunner9 1 week ago
@noderunner9 1) My position is that some highly destructive guns should indeed be banned , as they are unreasonably dangerous and allow more harm than good (for example, a grenade launcher or a machine gun is perfect for mass-murder, not so good at defending your house against a single burglar). Whether all guns should be banned or not is something I don't think we have enough evidence to decide yet.
2) Socratic method - asking questions to further the discussion in this case - and appropriate.
Stairc 1 week ago
@Stairc Since you haven't made up your mind about all guns, let's talk about what you have made your mind up about. You gave some examples, but can you explain to me what would be the criteria for qualifying as "unreasonably dangerous"? Also, can you explain to me why (presumably) a government official is more qualified to determine this for all people, instead of having individuals decide for themselves? What makes a legislator so much smarter than me at deciding what guns I can safely handle?
noderunner9 1 week ago
@noderunner9 1) It would be impossible for me to give anything more than a rule of thumb as per what unreasonably dangerous means - but any weapon that excells at killing massive amounts of people at once and/or does significant collateral damage to the surounding area (hard to argue that you're defending your home when you have to blow up a good portion of it while using the weapon)
2) Sure, I'll explain that when you explain why it's a good idea to not let terrorists decide if they have nukes
Stairc 1 week ago
@Stairc On your point #1, do you not see a problem with legislation that is loose, vague, and indeterminate? I'm not a fan. It leaves room for law makers to abuse their power and makes it difficult for people operating within that grey area to know whether or not they are going to get in trouble.
noderunner9 1 week ago
@Stairc As far as your point #2, it seems like you are going in circles now. I thought we already established that this line of reasoning is a logical fallacy. I do not agree with the line of logic that being skeptical of gun bans means that I would also on principle have to accept that we should allow "terrorists" to have nuclear weapons. This is an absurd notion. I do not think it's a good idea to allow terrorists to have nukes, nor do I understand why you bring it up.
noderunner9 1 week ago
@noderunner9 Sure, let's hit point 2 first.
The reason the government it better at deciding who should get a gun than the individual is because the mass murderers all want guns. If mass murderers didn't want guns, there would be no problem to begin with. If anyone can walk into wallmart and buy an unreasonably dangerous weapon - it's way too easy for any crackpot to get a gun. Or if it's on your wall and your troubled kid picks it up.
Still a logical fallacy?
Stairc 1 week ago
@Stairc You are answering a different question than what I asked you. I asked how a government official is better at deciding which guns are "too dangerous" for me to operate as opposed to other guns, not if a government official is good at determining which person has a criminal background. Those are two separate questions. Your earlier argument presumes that as a law abiding citizen, I should not be able to own a machine gun because the gun is too dangerous. How do you know enough about me?
noderunner9 1 week ago
@noderunner9 You seem to be missing practical execution.
Unreasonably dangerous weapons (my term for weapons that excel at mass-murder) should not be easily available to anyone with a credit card and cash. Why? Because there is little upside in personal defense, if any, and MASSIVE downside by making them easily available to everyone. The general public shouldn't be trusted to regulate themselves, because irresponsible people by definition are irresponsible and likely won't regulate themselves.
Stairc 1 week ago
@Stairc You are dodging my question like a politician, but fine, let's talk about the point you just brought up. You said that the general public cannot be trusted to regulate themselves because sometimes there are irresponsible people. Does this mean that, by definition, there are no irresponsible people in government? What makes the regulators so flawless? And how does this gun restriction help when the people who would actually use them for "mass murder" simply ignore the law to get them?
noderunner9 1 week ago
@noderunner9 Sure regulators aren't flawless. But we have more control over who becomes a law-maker. We know who they are, their backgrounds can be checked into extensively, etc.
Your argument is just strange. It can be applied to ANY law with equal oddness. Why trust the regulators to regulate ANY behavior then? Why trust them to make laws against rape and murder? Shouldn't we just regulate ourselves? After all, the irresponsible people will just ignore the laws anyways - right?
Stairc 1 week ago
@Stairc I have zero control over who becomes a law-maker. In the free market, I almost always get exactly what I pay for. But in government, nobody that I've ever voted for has ever won that election.
And yes, my argument can be applied to any regulation. Why is skepticism of regulation strange? I recognize the need to have government protect our rights, so your comment about rape and murder is a bit of a straw-man. But skepticism of regulation beyond the basics is easily justified.
noderunner9 1 week ago
@noderunner9 Ah, but who decides what are your rights and which to protect? The government. Who decides that rape is worth making illegal and watching TV should be legal? The government. If you want regulations, you need to have a regulatory body. That's how it works.
And yes, your officials might not win. That's because this is a democracy, not your tyranny.
Stairc 1 week ago
@Stairc Wrong. This is a nation governed by the consent of the people. Rape and murder violate our rights because our ancestors fought and died for those rights. You talk as if we were a colony of rapists and murderers until an all-wise and benevolent government came along and showed us the light. That's nonsense. We demanded our rights and we fought for them.
noderunner9 1 week ago
@noderunner9 Many of our ancestors fought and died in defense of slavery. So, slavery is a good thing too?
And you're right, in a free market everyone can get what they want. Including a terrorist who buys a mass-murder weapon. Heck, let's take it a step further and have no laws at all. That way absolutely everyone can do exactly what they want. Isn't that an awesome idea?
Or... Maybe the whole point is to stop some people from doing things in the first place...
Stairc 1 week ago
@Stairc Why are you taking everything I say out of context and building a straw-man argument? Was I making the point that *anything* anyone fought a war over is a "good" thing? No, of course not. I was making the point that government did not come along and give us our rights, we had to fight for them. I was making that point because you claimed that those rights came from government, which they don't. Slavery has nothing to do with anything.
noderunner9 1 week ago
@noderunner9 And for the last time, I'm not arguing for "no laws at all". That is also clearly not what I'm advocating. If you are just going to ignore my position and make things up on my behalf that are clearly absurd, then there is no point my having a conversation with you. If you are interested in actually trying to understand the opposing point of view with an open mind, the lets move this conversation out of limited YT comments to a place where we can can have a more efficient exchange.
noderunner9 1 week ago
@noderunner9 Your argument is a classic special pleading fallacy. You're fine with government regulation in many cases, but then in order to question gun regulation you feel compelled to question the entire ability of government to regulate anything and everything.
The whole point is that we don't WANT to let individuals regulate themselves on matters where their actions could cause other serious arm. That's why we have driving laws, rape laws, murder etc. You can't see this?
Stairc 1 week ago
@Stairc Are you unable to think in terms of trade-offs at all? Everything seems to be either completely one way or another with you. Either I must accept that gun regulation is good, or I must be pro-rape and murder. That's insane. You are so focused on trying to win an argument that you are missing an opportunity to understand. Just slow down and think for a second what the outcome would be if we didn't "let individuals regulate themselves on matters where their actions could cause others harm"
noderunner9 1 week ago
@noderunner9 It would mean that doctors could not practice medicine. It would mean that we could not build power plants, and nobody would be able to fly a plane. Just about every action you take in life comes with risks, and you could potentially harm someone with just about anything you do in life. But restricting everyones' freedom to do anything because it could potentially cause somebody harm makes things even worse.
noderunner9 1 week ago
@noderunner9 Treating everyone as if they are already a criminal is not a solution. Treating law-abiding people as if they are already criminals will not stop the real criminals from doing bad things. It never will. All it will accomplish is restricting the freedom of non-criminals. Because guess what, criminals break the law! Do you think forcing everyone to drive 25MPH all the time will stop automobile fatalities? Heck, if its good for safety, why stop there? Why not 5MPH?
noderunner9 1 week ago
@noderunner9 But there is nothing I will be able to say. You simply don't like guns so any loss in freedom doesn't personally affect you, so you don't care. Does it increase safety? That doesn't really matter to you, because it's no skin off your back. Better restrict it just in case, since you don't care anyway. Anything you don't like? Ban it in the name of "safety", because you can always make the argument that something isn't "safe" enough for you so you can have your way.
noderunner9 1 week ago
@noderunner9 No, you simply do not understand the implications of your own argument. You must provide a REASON why we should trust the killers to self-regulate themselves when it comes to buying mass-murder weapons but NOT trust the rapists to self-regulate themselves when it comes to raping women. The argument you've advanced can be applied with equal validity (or lack thereof) to all regulation. Unless you want to argue that all regulation is bad, the argument doesn't help you.
Stairc 1 week ago
@Stairc It's obvious to me that you are only interested in hearing your own voice and trying to make yourself seem clever by trying to "get me" with logic traps. Have fun with that. Maybe one day you'll grow out of just trying to win debates with silly semantic nonsense and you'll actually start caring about real things. Until that day comes, I'm not interested in talking with you. But I'll always defend your right to be as close-minded as you wish. Good luck in life.
noderunner9 1 week ago
@noderunner9 It's a simple question. If you claim that your argument is being misrepresented, just answer the question. What reason do we have to trust that killers will self-regulate themselves and not purchase weapons of mass murder (since you're so eager to have people self-regulate themselves when it comes to gun purchases) but not trust rapists to self-regulate themselves? If you can't provide one, then your argument is just an excuse because you want to be able to buy a gun.
Stairc 1 week ago
@Stairc You are asking me to defend and argument that I am not making. That's the problem. I'm not defending "killers" rights to buy machine guns. What is the difference between a "killer" and a regular person? A "killer" is someone that is known to have murdered someone. Am I advocating that convicted murderers be allowed to purchase machine guns? Am I? Of course not, and I never have. Yet you frame your question as if I did. And you'll respond to this in the same way no doubt.
noderunner9 1 week ago
@noderunner9 I'm saying that unless you have a criminal background, there should be no problem with you buying a machine gun. People who are not criminal should not be punished because of crimes that other people committed. This is very different from "trusting killers to self-regulate". The fact that try to pass this off as my position shows how immature you are being in this conversation. Why would I want known murderers to have machine guns? That's nonsense.
noderunner9 1 week ago
@noderunner9 I'm saying that restricting LAW ABIDING CITIZENS from buying guns does not stop "KILLERS" from getting guns. That is not the same as advocating that "killers" should be able to buy machine guns.
noderunner9 1 week ago
@noderunner9 Now, going back to your position.
Think of the possible upside of making grenade launchers easily accessible to anyone with a credit card. Now think of the possible downsides to grenade launchers being easily, legally purchasable. Every sick kid who goes into his father's gun-room, every nut who hasn't hurt anyone YET but is ready to blow away his school... Every first-time offender or old freak with a bone to pick... Easy access.
We don't let people own smallpox either.
Stairc 1 week ago
@noderunner9 So, you're fine with some gun regulation... Run by regulators. I understand your position, however the argument you give to why you want to be allowed to purchase mass-murder weapons yourself is "why should the government know better than me what weapons I should get to own?". This argument is too wide-spreading, since it equally attacks all regulations of everything. I know YOU aren't trying to apply it to everything, but the argument is still equally flawed.
Stairc 1 week ago
@Stairc It's a *question*, not an *argument* when I asked you how a government official knows better than me. You are reading too much into my question because you think that's the argument I'm making, but it's not. What I'm trying to illustrate, is that the government official doesn't know who is going to turn out to be a murderer and who isn't. The regulator isn't going to know ahead of time which 1 person out of the 50,000 gun owners is going to use that gun to commit a crime.
noderunner9 1 week ago
@noderunner9 So the regulator thinks "no problem, I'll just stop anyone from being allowed to have the gun, that way I don't need to know which person it actually is that is going to hurt someone". But it doesn't work that way. What ends up really happening, is that all the people who respect the law, but desire to own a machine gun aren't allowed. But the 1 person who doesn't care about the law and wants to hurt people, just goes and gets a machine gun by *breaking the law*.
noderunner9 1 week ago
@noderunner9 The effect of this is that the crime still takes place, but everyone else who plays by the rules is punished anyway. I think where you are getting confused is that you are misunderstanding my position to be: "allowing everyone to have machine guns will prevent murderers from getting machine guns". No. I'm not offering a solution to murderers getting machine guns. I don't have a solution for that. I'm simply saying that neither of us have a solution, so let's at least have freedom.
noderunner9 1 week ago
@noderunner9 Banning things doesn't solve the problem. So let's let law abiding citizens have their freedom, since taking away that freedom isn't solving the problem anyway. In your scenario, we have bad people killing, and less freedom for good people. In my scenario, we have bad people still killing, but more freedom for good people. Neither scenario is perfect. But one is better than the other.
noderunner9 1 week ago
@Stairc And you know full well that I wasn't advocating for a tyranny under my control. I was illustrating that under markets, everybody can get what they want, which works better than democratizing everything, where the majority gets what they want at the expense of the minority. You probably don't care about this, unless you find yourself within that minority, then I'm sure you start caring. If you want to talk about this reasonably, let me know and we can set something up.
noderunner9 1 week ago
Comment removed
mjkeat 2 weeks ago
Who will obey stricter gun laws or a complete ban on ownership of firearms? Only the people we don't have to worry about in the first place. The people we want to keep firearms from will still find ways to obtain firearms regardless of how strict the laws get. Hell outlaw firearms completely and you'll still see them being used to commit crimes. Criminals are criminals for a reason, they don't live by the law. Criminals will still have firearms as they are the tool of their trade.
mjkeat 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
And we (law abiding citizens) will be left w/o a prayer as our civil services are stretched to thin to be proactive no matter how hard they try.
mjkeat 2 weeks ago
Gun Control has been and will always be the first attempt for tyrannical government. A population that can't defend itself can easily be controlled.
dsrtdawg1 3 weeks ago
@dsrtdawg1 It's also the first attempt for having a society with less gun-related-crime.
Stairc 2 weeks ago
@Stairc Engage your brain and look at the history of that. Even places that have CLAMPED down on guns have more stabbings, bombings etc..
dsrtdawg1 2 weeks ago
@dsrtdawg1 And ones that have clamped down on guns also all became tyrannical regimes? Engage your brain on that my friend.
Some countries with strict gun laws have much less violence than us. Some have more. There are conflating factors and no one thing is at the core of all violence.
Stairc 2 weeks ago
@Stairc You've already failed ...You had to use ALL to support your argument and then had to use some to promote the benefits comparing apples and oranges. Nations and regions are different. The point of the matter is don't impose your ideals on me by taking away my right to self defense.
dsrtdawg1 2 weeks ago
@dsrtdawg1 Transpose regions with nations in my last comment. It makes no difference.
I'm glad that you show your colors though and throw away your other arguments. The data doesn't matter to you. You just want your guns.
Stairc 2 weeks ago
@Stairc Afraid you showed your colors...crime exploding whenever guns have been banned...you have your agenda and your feelings matter over reality. I tried to give you a chance to research the facts ...you failed.
dsrtdawg1 2 weeks ago
@dsrtdawg1 Are you claiming that tyrannical regimes became instated whenever guns have been banned? Somehow when you look at reality, it seems like what you say is almost not true. ;)
As for crime exploding whenever guns have been banned, this is simply not true. Many european countries have stricter gun laws than we do and much less gun-related crime.
Stairc 2 weeks ago
@Stairc You're really stupid aren't you? You read things 180 degrees from how written. Tyrannical regimes impose gun law....not the other way around. You compare apples and oranges. European history is fraught with divine kingdoms and the right of the masses to be armed was heavily restricted unless they were being sent to seize lands and treasure.
dsrtdawg1 2 weeks ago
@dsrtdawg1 Brilliant, you've created a scenario where everything you say is right as a matter of default.
Statement: Gun control is the first step for a tyrannical regime.
Proof: They imposed gun control. That makes them tyrannical.
Let me try
Statement: Gun control is the first step for a compassionate regime.
Proof: They imposed gun control. That makes them compassionate.
Wow, this is easy. No wonder you do it. =)
Stairc 2 weeks ago
@Stairc I offer the King's of England, Nazi Regime off the top of my head...please tell me one regime that has done what you propose!
dsrtdawg1 2 weeks ago
@dsrtdawg1 1) There's no apostrophe in "Kings of England"
2) Don't you know the first person to cry, "Nazi!" automatically loses credibility? ;)
3) Australia. Took me two seconds to Google it. Are you claiming Australia is a tyrannical regime?
Stairc 2 weeks ago
@Stairc 1) petty 2) Bullshit and self-serving 3) Assault increased as a result
dsrtdawg1 2 weeks ago
@dsrtdawg1 1 and 2) You take things too seriously =)
3) Irrelevant. You are claiming that gun control is the first step of a tyrannical regime. Whether crime goes up or not is irrelevant to whether there is a tyrannical regime. In fact, Anarchy is complete freedom and would likely result in massive amounts of assault.
Stairc 2 weeks ago
@Stairc Actually, anarchism is about debunking illegitimate authority in society, which allows for free and non-violent people to associate and live. on the Other hand, murder on the largest scale, theft on the largest scale and rape on the largest scale are all things that occur in Wars. wars are massive chaotic storms of death so large that they only could have been formed and organized on both sides by Large governments
Anarchism is about non-aggression. war is crime on a large scale
Ravengaurd6 2 weeks ago
@Ravengaurd6 Anarchy Definition at top of Google...
1)A state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.
2) Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.
This is what I'm talking about when I say Anarchy. Notice I do not say Anarchism.
Stairc 2 weeks ago
@Stairc so does that mean that destruction that is organized and intentional is somehow preferred to destruction that is sporadic and pointless?
Ravengaurd6 2 weeks ago
@Ravengaurd6 It means there's no government of any kind and absolute freedom for the individual.
Stairc 2 weeks ago
@Stairc sure...even though no freedom is absolute.
Ravengaurd6 2 weeks ago
@Ravengaurd6 lol, please enlighten me as to how having NO government of any kind doesn't give people absolute freedom to do whatever they want to eachother? Which of course would be a bad thing.
Regardless,, whether this fits your bill of, "absolute freedom" or not is beside the point. It is irrelevant to my argument.
Stairc 2 weeks ago
all things being equal, without a government, people only do to others what they are willing to risk having done to themselves. during pitched battles,violent crimes or mob attacks those involved are willing to kill and destroy because they are willing to risk being killed or destroyed. for the individual it is the fear of retaliation that will check him. but of course people can be like governments and eliminate risk through force of numbers.
freedom exist where interaction is mutual.
Ravengaurd6 2 weeks ago
@Ravengaurd6 No, that's not at all true. A rich and powerful person will gladly order thugs to rape someone without worrying about retaliation - especially if he expects that the only thing keeping a neighbor from attacking HIM is if he gets to them first and murders them. Fear of retaliation doesn't stop bullies. It takes authority figures to step in.
Stairc 2 weeks ago
@Stairc That doesn't really debunk what I stated. people can remove risk through sheer force of numbers. that also counts as a leader using other people to carry out violence in their name. To stop a bully it doesn't require a person with a uniform or a nice title, it requires a sufficient amount of force to deter or destroy an aggressor. if I own a loaded gun, with or without a badge or a uniform, that gun still discharge metal rounds at speeds that rend flesh and bone.
Ravengaurd6 2 weeks ago
@Ravengaurd6 but a government can hinder alot as well
guineapiggyman 2 weeks ago
@guineapiggyman /watch?v=XDpOUFDZOoY&feature=relmfu this states the entire problem with that.
Ravengaurd6 2 weeks ago
@Stairc Proper parenting is key to preventing gun related accidents. If you can teach your kid to safely walk across the street, to be properly toilet-trained, to stay away from broken glass on the ground, and not to talk to strangers, then you can easily teach them to safely handle a firearm, or to not ever touch one (your choice).
WenchesOfRedemption 2 weeks ago
@WenchesOfRedemption Abstinence is also a surefire way to avoid underage pregnancy and STDs. However, despite how much we talk about it, studies show that teens don't listen.
Likewise, proper parenting would solve all our problems. But we have little control over how an individual raises their children. We do have control over selling machine guns to anyone with a credit card.
Stairc 2 weeks ago
@Stairc Strange. My 2 kids know not to touch my guns (15 to be precise) around the house. I've never had an accident.
If you're trying to tell me that armed self-defense is rare, then you are talking to the wrong person. Firearms are used to stop crime 2.5 million times each year. If you actually paid close attention to reliable statistics, you would find that cases similar to your description are extremely scarce.
WenchesOfRedemption 2 weeks ago
@Stairc In addition, the fact that you mentioned that there are common sales of "machine guns" really shows how little you actually know about firearms. Are you familiar with the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986?
Semi automatic rifles by definition are not machine guns. They operate and function completely different. No legal automatic firearm under the FOPA of 1986 has ever been used in a crime.
As for illegal ones however...
WenchesOfRedemption 2 weeks ago
Guns don't kill people, the Government does!
sgthobbes2 3 weeks ago
Guns don't kill americans. Republicans do.
Claframb 3 weeks ago
Ha ha, love that lady...."Am i afraid to shoot a gun (anyone of the arsenal she has at home)? Absolutely no"
TheSRalston 3 weeks ago
I live in Britain, where the gun laws are obviously a LOT stricter, and I used to think that that was how it should be (Naturally, I don't like things that are designed to kill.) This, however, has changed my mind. Prohibiting something immediately opens up a black market for it, and we know what sort of people thrive on black market business. I don't think, however, that a gun is something you should own with pride. Surely you would only be using a gun in a horrific and dangerous situation?
PassTheMarmalade1957 3 weeks ago
*imposses*
LastCaress7 3 weeks ago
Anyone who impossing banning firearms should be arrested and charged with TREASON.
LastCaress7 3 weeks ago
anyone who supports gun control or disarming citizens is a fucking coward or a very evil person
krll98 3 weeks ago
Call a cop? Last time I did that it took them 45 minutes to arrive.
AliceinCalifornia 3 weeks ago
No matter how we feel about our community . WE MUST PROTECT OUR LIBERTY . I know it seems crazy to many . Things are not always as they seem . In a very important big picture . The rights must stand . Or please leave this nation . And let People that believe in freedom have it back. Don't be harsh on my view .. Just please give the moment to see this side. Open a history book .. Nazi Germany seems very similar at this moment . Ouch .. I went there!
Beachcrib 3 weeks ago
Please overthrow the government already, people are dying overseas from our elected official's evil decisions.
signalfire6 4 weeks ago
The whole argument about guns and crime is completely irrelevant in regards to the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment was not written to protect a right to keep a gun for self defense. The right to protect life and property was already established under common law. The Founders did not believe this right needed protection. The 2A protects the right to keep and bear arms with military use. While it is an individual right to own, the teeth is in the collective right to bear.
rmstorms 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
yea...but guns sure do help
lovetownsend 1 month ago
thank you for the snow genarater
katfishdaddybenck33 1 month ago
Okay gun control doesn't work. What I think people need to focus on more is the Border Patrol. People traffic guns in and out of this country. If we made our border patrol stronger as well as our law enforcement we could keep a lot of shit from coming in to our country and a lot of shit from coming out! After all the first place to turn to whether guns are illegal or not is the black market. Law abiding citizens would still have their guns and the criminals would have less of them.
Cacowninja 1 month ago
I don't think america will ever understand how fucking gun crazy they appear to the rest of us.
You want guns no fucking problem you can even call it your right go fucking nuts. But to say guns make you safer and provide some sort of security is complete bullshit. America is the only country where individual people need guns to feel safe.
MrPyrulen 1 month ago in playlist Penn and Teller's Bullshit
Guns are dangerous, as well as cars, airplanes, cigarettes, knives, tools, and fire.
PhilanVortex 1 month ago
@PhilanVortex Not a very good argument considering guns are portable and made to kill while all the other objects you mentioned aren't.
Cacowninja 1 month ago
240p we meet again
giant648 1 month ago
They want to make guns illegal to abolish crime, eh? Isn't murder illegal?
techerik14 1 month ago
He shot a bible. Penn and Teller are my hero.
TheWaluigiman1 1 month ago
@TheWaluigiman1 Next they should shoot the Koran because it's even MOAR shitty than the Bible. :P
Cacowninja 1 month ago
@Cacowninja lol
TheWaluigiman1 1 month ago
jeezus, mabel's a HORRIBLE shot!!!
sheetsy 2 months ago
8:53 Why does that guy remind me of Chris-Chan?
TheEllampalli 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kashsoldier Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
AnonymousReborn 2 months ago
@kashsoldier Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
AnonymousReborn 2 months ago 10
@AnonymousReborn whilst that's true - the free availability of guns does make it more likely that people will be killed.
jeffersinsky 1 month ago
@AnonymousReborn People don't kill people, the CIA kills people.
RBNightlinger 1 month ago
@AnonymousReborn
Wrong - MC Vagina kills people. With guns.
Diemedes 4 weeks ago
@AnonymousReborn guns just make it easier :v
narkroshi88 3 weeks ago
@AnonymousReborn I agree. Let's give everyone easy access to nuclear weapons too. After all, nuclear weapons don't kill people. People kill people.
Stairc 3 weeks ago
@Stairc There is a borderline difference between firearms and weapons of mass destruction. What I meant with "Guns don't kill people. People kill people" logic, it's supposed to mean that guns don't pull their own trigger and shoots people. It's the one holding the gun with their finger on the trigger that shoots the victim. After all who are the ones who do the crimes? Criminals, not the guns.
AnonymousReborn 2 weeks ago
@AnonymousReborn Do nuclear weapons pull their own triggers too?
I agree there's a difference between nuclear weapons and guns. But saying, "it's not the gun's fault" doesn't help your argument. Having easy access to a machine gun, or nuclear warhead, makes it much easier to kill a lot of people than otherwise.
Stairc 2 weeks ago
@Stairc You make it sound like anyone who owns weapons of mass destruction or firearms are chaotic murder machines.
AnonymousReborn 2 weeks ago
@AnonymousReborn I'll respond to that. But first, do you now see why the, "guns don't kill people, people do" argument is invalid? That is, unless you're for everyone having control over nuclear weapons, anthrax, smallpox and much more. After all, none of these things pull their own triggers.
Stairc 2 weeks ago
What about a poor unsuspecting convenience store clerk, who hardly have any time to respond even if he carries a gun, when a shit head with a gun barges in?
What about pissed off kids in school, going after other kids?
US should follow Canadian gun control laws. Canada does not ban guns, but they also make it difficult for Civilians, criminals and crazies to get guns.
kashsoldier 2 months ago
@kashsoldier
"Canada does not ban guns"
Canada DOES ban guns you fucking retard. AK-47s were banned in Canada because they looked "evil" and had a notorious reputation, while VZ-58s (a better weapon) are still readily available.
AGeekWithAShotgun 3 weeks ago
Guns kill people. Statistics say it all. When people talk for guns, they just focus on crazies going after other people in public places. People argue that they need to protect themselves. Lame excuse to have a gun. Is your life worth that much? or Does it mean that lives of others are worthless? Selfish
1. What about countless number of homicides happening across the US every other day? It shows that the enemy is within not outside. What about a disgruntled shithead killing his own family?
kashsoldier 2 months ago
When people say that gun control does not stop criminals from getting guns?
well, as long as Guns are available, there will be crime. Door to door search is the best way to go, to remove all firearms possessed by stupid ass civilians !! no wonder criminals get away with illegal weapons.
After so many deaths in the US due to guns, it is time for a complete ban. Half baked, eye wash rules don't cut it anymore/.
It can be done, if there is will. Politicians should get their act together.
kashsoldier 2 months ago
@kashsoldier Well what about the second amendment? It clearly states that the right of the people to own guns shall NEVER be infringed upon. I guess we should also ban everything else that can kill people then too. Good-bye knives, sticks, rocks, slippery bathroom floors, etc. There will always be guns, and unless a group of pseudo-socialist hippies decide to burn down the National Archives, I think we'll be ok.
iliketurtlesandbacon 2 months ago
@kashsoldier Right so naturally since drugs are illegal, no one gets drugs and there's not a multi billion dollar industry doing the very thing you claim impossible....
Guns will be available regardless of any law, a little thing called black market exists for this very purpose.
Like I mentioned in a earlier comment to you, Thailand has way worse gun crime than the US, yet guns are highly restrictive there. Gun control is not crime control.
crazypants88 2 months ago 7
@crazypants88 So by that logic, should anything be illegal?
Stairc 3 weeks ago
@Stairc No I think if it's inherently coercive, like human trafficking, theft, murder etc, it then should be illegal.
But things that aren't coercive should be legal, like recreational drug use, prostitution, gun ownership etc.
crazypants88 3 weeks ago
@crazypants88 so, nuclear weapon ownership, anthrax ownership, smallpox ownership - these are all fine with you.
Just wanted to clear that up.
Stairc 3 weeks ago
@Stairc Yes pretty much. That's not to say that there shouldn't be some oversight on the people owning things of that nature. That oversight doesn't need to be of the government nor does it need to be restrictive like government oversight is.
You don't think the US state doesn't owns barrels of the stuff. If they are capable of keeping it why aren't non-state people able?
crazypants88 3 weeks ago
@crazypants88 *sighs*
Maybe you think it's a good idea to hand out nuclear weapons to any nutjob out there, as well as other weapons of mass destruction.
Personally, I think that would probably not end well.
Stairc 3 weeks ago
@Stairc Yes that's what I meant by it should have oversight, that everyone should have a nuke.
Seriously though, no. I was rather explicit that it should have oversight, as in some collection of people giving their mark of approval to anyone owning a nuke, or any other weapon of mass destruction.
crazypants88 3 weeks ago
@crazypants88 So you think there should be nuke-control... It's fine to have a nuke, so long as... What? An collection of people say, "sure, let's give this private citizen a nuclear warhead or vial of a disease that, if smashed on the sidewalk, will kill 10% of the people in America".
When would this EVER be a good idea?
Stairc 3 weeks ago
@Stairc Yes because ignoring these things will make them disapear. Nukes exists, the knowledge to create them exists. Therefore the threat of nukes is a constant. The best deterrence against a nuclear attack is mutually assured destruction, meaning that if you engage in nuclear war with someone you stand to lose just as much as your opponent does IF he has nukes.
Also is it any more feasible when a state keeps nukes or anthrax?
At least a private citizen has never nuked someone.
crazypants88 3 weeks ago
@crazypants88 How effective do you think mutually assured destruction will be against suicide bombers?
Stairc 3 weeks ago
@Stairc It wouldn't be, it applies to nukes and weapons of mass destruction.
A good way to deter suicide bombers is to not attack people who pose no threat to you.
See the US state's foreign policy.
crazypants88 2 weeks ago
@kashsoldier Ha! Good luck stealing!
KnoxSUX 2 months ago
@kashsoldier You're a goddamn moron. Does banning guns remove all guns from existence? No. There is and still would be a black market for them. So congratulations, you are the violent criminal's best friend. You support de-arming law abiding citizens, leaving only the government and violent criminals with them. Also, fuck you. Owning a gun does not violate anyone else's right, so therefore I have a right to own one.
pinkkfloydd 1 month ago
@pinkkfloydd Good for you, guns are bad, therefore everyone should have them. Your solution to gun violence is to what? add more guns, and make them legal?
Enjoy your rights to be a fucking idiot. I have no problem if you want to own a gun, but stop pretending like everyone owning guns is a good thing, that's just stupid.
MrPyrulen 1 month ago in playlist Penn and Teller's Bullshit
@MrPyrulen
In every State that has enacted 'shall-issue' concealed carry permits the crime rate ahs dropped, every single time it has been done. Crime rates have gone up where guns have been more restricted.
More guns=less crime.
RetSquid 1 month ago
@RetSquid I wasn't disputing that, but at what cost? I was merely remarking at how laughable it is that america throws it's gunlaws around as if there proud of the fact that they need guns in the hands of 99% of it's citizens to feel safe, or worse as some sort of right. when everywhere else in the world manages crime, and gun laws without having to arm the hicks.
More guns = less crime = Highest rate of gun injuries/incidents in the developed world.
Congratulations
MrPyrulen 1 month ago
@MrPyrulen
Our gun rights insure that if our government gets out of hand, we can take it back. And keeping our inherent rights of self defense. What is the source for your injuries/incidents claim?
RetSquid 1 month ago
@RetSquid Sorry busy over the holidays. You can say that but you know it's bullshit government hasn't feared the people they govern in a long time, guns won't change that. I can't recall the site i went to look for statistics on the stats for the injuries claim but in all honesty i don't care enough to check if you want guns have them, i'm not going to impose on your right. as i've said before i just think it's ridiculous.
Essentially it's just not something i care to debate about.
MrPyrulen 1 month ago
@MrPyrulen
"Essentially it's just not something i care to debate about."
Then why are you here?
RetSquid 1 month ago
@RetSquid Ohh i apologize, i was under the impression that youtube was a video sharing sight, where people would come to view content they found interesting for whatever reasons they choose. I had no idea this was rigidly policed forum of political ideas and commentary. So excuse me, fucktard.
MrPyrulen 1 month ago
@MrPyrulen
LOL!!! You are the one saying everyone is nuts for owning a gun. And yes, YouTube is for sharing video content, but if you leave a comment, be prepared to back up your views or be called out on it, silly boy.
RetSquid 1 month ago
@RetSquid I don't have to back up my own opinion dickhead, yeah i can think its silly for an entire nation to somehow feel safer if everyone had a gun, but as i said i wouldn't infringe on anyone's right nor vote against such a thing you want a gun great, i won't stop you but i happen to think it a bit excessive to claim it's a right to own a gun.
You didn't call em out on anything just made yourself look like a unreasonable douche, so fuck you, end of discussion.
MrPyrulen 1 month ago
@MrPyrulen
This entire Nation is safer with a gun. More gun=less crime. Even in England this was true, now they have more home invasions and killings with knives, bats, whatever. But banning guns didn't make it any safer, it made it more dangerous.
We have a right to own a firearm just as we have a right to free speech, both are natural rights a person gets from God, not any man.
BTW, you are the one who just shit all over himself with your off-the-wall comments.
RetSquid 1 month ago
@RetSquid If i knew you were such a simple-minded person i never would have responded in the first place, for that i apologize.
you have a very basic and flawed view on rights, and your assertion that more guns = less crime is also wrong i never claimed that banning guns would make things safer. but then again you would have to create a straw-man to assert your ridiculous points and make them look reasonable.
This is a waste of time and this last message was just a courtesy. Goodbye
MrPyrulen 1 month ago
No, the assertion of more guns/less crime is backed up by years of research over decades of information. You think people who own guns are nuts, the facts are that they are far less likely to be involved in criminal activity than non-gun owners. Owners of a concealed carry permits commit murder at the rate of 1/182nd of the general population, that is per capita you are 182 times more likely to be killed by a non-CCW holder. People should be scared of you.
RetSquid 1 month ago
@RetSquid Ofcourse how silly of me, Me someone whom does not oppose the individuals right to carry a weapon but merely remarks that as a matter personal opinion i find it unnecessary. is much more terryfying than the thought of over 300million people owning firearms.
Yeah solid logic there. Your trying to convince me of something that is simply a matter of personal opinion for me? you realise how futile that is right?
I do not claim to impose on your right to own a gun.
MrPyrulen 1 month ago
@MrPyrulen
Your opinion is that gun owners are nuts. I understand that. It is factually wrong, that is why I responded.
RetSquid 1 month ago