Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "Assault Weapon Bans Are All About Appearance" video.

@Hans "The people will back the government like always in the American history." - you mean like in the Revolutionary war? bahahaha what a story, Hans.
26
@ryanjudy2119 lmao yeah let's wait for 400 to 500 million guns to wear out...
22
@Hans lel government bans guns. Private business caused him an inconvenience.
5
@piknick111 "yes, at closer range." - yeah because mass shooters are widely known for their long distance shots, definitely not the enclosed spaces of schools, office buildings, clubs, theaters, etc...
5
The problem is that the "aesthetic" experience of the mass shooter is so tied to guns that typically fly under the radar. Columbine happened during the AWB and it's only recently that AR-15s came down in price so a lot of the culture revolves around guns available in the 1990's and cheaper/family guns that teenagers had access to in the midle-2000's. While the modern mass shooter is bombarded non-stop with media reports saying the AR is the most deadliest weapon ever, the "aesthetic" of the mass shooter itself is so tied to pump action shotguns/sawn-offs, Mini-14s, HiPoint carbines, etc.
3
"So you say that there is no technical distinction between guns that are a threat to society and guns that aren't" - excuse me? Which guns are a threat to society? "you ridicule people for using non-technical grouping that attempts to make that distinction instead?" - DUDE. The point is that there is no distinction. "Why would someone fight for one and not the other unless they had an agenda?" - because it's easier to fight in the digital battleground. If the government starts telling you you can't own encryption tools I can just copy mine and send it to you. If the government comes after guns we'll need to make our own guns from scratch. If they ban ammunition we'll have to make it from scratch which although a cool mental exercise in engineering, it's a little more complex as it involves building a production line.
2
"One can objectively determine a difference between an AR15 and a muzzle loader" - way to strawman the argument. Nobody is arguing muzzleloaders are equally effective as an AR15 (or almost nobody), we're saying a fudd looking weapon is as effective in a mass shooting as an AR15 but won't get banned. Then you ask, why would you want an AR15 if the fudd weapon is just as good, to which I reply, I am not a fucking mass shooter. To a mass shooter it won't matter that the fudd weapon is a little more expensive, or a little less accurate. To a civilian gun owner, who might want it for hunting, self-defense or target shooting purposes having a gun that does 1" groups at 100 yards out of the box is pretty great. To a mass shooter it doesn't fucking matter it does 3-6 inches at 100 yards, he's shooting at groups people running in hallways. There's also the precedent: a government able to tell me to trade the black polymer for wood will one day tell me to give up my wood-stock fudd guns. The government tells you that you can't own black plastic furniture but they're gonna let you have GUNS, which is the actually dangerous part? Yeah right.
2
I don't know if you're trolling because, some 50 year old dude is not going to chase down a deer with a spear, and a person with an arm injury or something can't bow hunt.
2
@georgethompson3763 No, it's not the only way and it's the worse way to do it. I don't care about hunting, there's more important reasons to have firearms. If you actually read the Second Amendment there is no requirement to participate in a militia. If you actually look it up the American law actually acknowledges the existence of the militia apart from the national guard, simply being all able bodied men of fighting age. Besides that, multiple states have laws that codify the state militia as all able bodied men of fighting age. Your study is mostly useless. Semi-automatic rifles do not kill more people, handguns do. Mass shootings are a small percentage of gun homicides, the vast majority committed with handguns. Your link is also so poorly written it just says attacks with semi-autos lead to increased hit rates. It doesn't differentiate between the actual shots taken. It calls out semi-automatic rifles but did not differentiate between pistols and rifles in the numbers. So if I go on a mass shooting with a pump-action shotgun and a semi-auto rifle and actually get more kills than average with the pump-action, will the study chalk it up as a "semi-auto" victory? Or a pump-action shotgun and a semi-automatic handgun, the shotgun being much more deadly, will it get chalked up as a "semi-auto" victory so that the article calls out semi-auto rifles? This whole argument is just a waste of time - banning semi-autos would make the US one of the strictest countries in the world when it comes to guns and they have a right to keep and bear arms you're telling me we Europeans would have better gun laws than the US despite not having a right to guns? Jeez. If you look it up the homicide resorting to blunt weapons/tools/bare hands actually outnumbers the rifle homicide stats. And that one includes ALL rifles, semi-auto or not. You're using the emotional argument of "children's lives". There are many things that kill more children than firearms. You don't actually care about children, just removing guns. Again, I don't care about hunting. "As a compromise" - a compromise means you give something back. Gun owners already gave into so many laws, what do they get in return? "Again, as I said, I'm totally against confiscation" - which is bullshit. There's like 10 million AR15s in civilian hands, it's cheaper to manufacture than even an AK these days because of all the tooling purchased to fulfill military contracts already being paid off, it's cheaper than competing models so it sells. And there's millions more of other semi-auto rifles. So if you're not for confiscation and you allow grandfathering of ARs you're still accepting more than a century's worth of mass shootings happening with the available weapons without new ones being purchased.
2
@georgethompson3763 better trained? You do realize that people in the National Guard, unless deployed, are expected to serve a weekend a month and two weeks per year, right? That doesn't give enough of a calendar year to train more because many people in the National Guard have day jobs. It's funny that you - incorrectly - refer to the National Guard as the only rightful militia and then don't even know how the fuck it even works. Not to mention that the NG obeys the state and the president so if people in the NG were to fight tyranny, they would have to defect and become "civilians".
2
@georgethompson3763 "No, since most mass shootings are done with newly-bought weapons" - you do realize a mass shooter buying a gun off someone else is a "newly-bought weapon", right? "bought their weapons years ago and are responsible" - that's still millions of people who might get fired from their job or divorced or whatever. "Ban any sale of AR-15s" - you mean semi-auto rifles. Why the hard on for the AR-15? You're gonna ban AKs, Mini-14s, etc too right? "including private sales" - bruh if you don't confiscate semi-auto rifles how you're going to prevent people from selling them privately, then? "prevent people under 21 from buying a firearm" - No. No. No. If people aren't responsible enough to own a gun until 21, then they can't vote until they're 21 nor join the military. Rights are rights. "ban high capacity magazines" - it's a fucking box with a spring. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jw0ZGVbyfpk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyYSqBA9BKw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGTriDDUpUk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2KCuymRLMk how the fuck do you ban a box with a spring? Hell you can just take smaller magazines and weld them together: http://www.defensereview.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Higher_Capacity_32-Round_and_45-Round_SR-25_and-M14-M1A_7.62mm_Rifle_Magazines_Company_Shot.jpg http://www.defensereview.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Higher_Capacity_55-Round_and_75-Round_AR-15_5.56mm_Rifle_Magazines_Company_Shot.jpg http://photobucket.com/gallery/http://s983.photobucket.com/user/44Echo10/media/Gun%20Stuff/AR/AK%20style%20magazine/62dgbix_zpsf21e5b3f.jpg.html This implying anyone would even need to manufacture their own magazines, because there's millions upon millions of them and they're all unaccounted for. There' no paperwork on magazines. "make training mandatory" - it would be taken down by the supreme court like requiring a civics exam before voting. It's meant to disqualify lower class people from exercising their rights. "have a national registration and universal background check" - you're thinking three steps ahead aren't you. Canada eliminated their long gun registry in 2012 because it was proven that it was a useless drain in resources. The only purpose of a registry is not having to allow grandfathering, simply checking on a list who owns what and sending them a letter saying they have 90 days to turn them in or SWAT will knock down the front door. "create a national tax on firearm sales" - again, using a tax to restrict a right by making it more expensive might be struck down by the supreme court "reinstate the so-called assault weapon ban. That should curb the number of deaths over time. " - no, it fucking wouldn't. Mexico and Brazil have much stricter gun laws than you described and they have much higher murder rates. In fact, in Brazil murder rates have risen since their anti-gun laws were passed. The assault weapons ban was proven ineffective because most homicide is not committed with assault weapons and because many manufacturers simply changed their guns to comply with the AWB. You literally have no evidence that what you said is going to happen will actually happen, and the US is much closer to a Latin American country than a European one so you can count on criminals still having guns and killing each other. Nearly anything you say is either flat out unconstitutional, impractical, unrealistic, or actually doesn't even make any fucking sense.
2
Yeah, look at the weapons categorized as PDWs - personal defense weapons. The MP7 and P90, along with other submachine guns/machine pistols loaded with AP versions of pistol ammo.
2
Yep. Anyone remember the Dragon Skin debacle, where the media portrayed the military as cheap fucks who didn't want to buy American soldiers the best armor and banned soldiers from using personally purchased Dragon Skin? Pictures surfaced of generals wearing Dragon Skin while their protection detail were wearing the normal vests. Wow, if generals wear them they must be pretty good. Well, all those generals were certified retards thinking spending more money would give them more protection, turns out that the manufacturer was in trouble for lying to the Air Force about NIJ certification they had not received and the vests did not survive military testing.
1
Let me check my crystal ball. The ban would be circumvented by redesigning weapons with rate reducers like in the Stechkin or Skorpion machine pistols, where the reciprocating slide/bolt hits a spring-loaded weight and get stuck on a catch. After the weight is kicked down and is returned by the spring to it's original position it hits a lever releasing the catch and allowing the slide/bolt to fly forward and resume operation after a quick pause. Eventually a mass shooter would use a rate-reducer equipped weapon in a massacre and we'd have this conversation all over again. The funny thing is, air guns (and sometimes airsoft!) are typically regulated by muzzle energy in many countries. They probably don't want air rifle snipers committing terrorism acts, considering that making a silencer for an air gun is much easier than for a firearm.
1
Are you out of your goddamn mind? If others give up their guns don't give up yours! Why would you voluntarily give up your tactical advantage?
1
@entropicgirl8648 Why Sweden? If anything you're in greater danger in Sweden than in any place in rural America or the average European country.
1
@entropicgirl8648 now I'm not saying it's wrong to shoot a charging bear, because they fuck people up. But people really shouldn't slip up when they're in bear country in the first place. Please don't shoot bears. They're beautiful animals. You made it clear that you want guns to protect yourself from people, now you claim only animal defense is legitimate. I dunno, maybe the BBC is too right-wing for you.
1
308 is a full rifle cartridge.
1
Yeah, got into an argument about that and the pro-wall people eventually came full-circle and supported the Berlin "antifascist" wall put up by literal commies and manned by state sponsored murderers specially trained to not hesitate.
1
@matttaylor6500 "Comparing 3rd world countries to the US is a little far fetched." - take a look at San Francisco requiring poop patrols to clean up the literal shit and needles left in the streets. Look at Flint, MA where the corrupt government was telling people the brown water filled with rust and lead was safe to drink. You think it's far fetched? "Canada has reasonable gun restrictions" - no, they don't. You can own a Vz.58 but AKs are on the Prohibited class and very difficult to own and shoot recreationally. Also, maybe this has been changed but rifles have 5 round limits, however you could buy magazines for a .50 Beowulf AR pistol, which can hold 10 rounds. The .50 Beowulf caliber was designed to fit inside AR magazines so you can get that magazine and fill with with almost 30 rounds. The RCMP are a bunch of crybabies who constantly wake up butthurt from the fact that Canadians can own guns (GASP!) and they throw temper tantrums by reclassifying legal weapons as Prohibited and sending letters to gun owners telling them to turn them in. They have a massive stick up their ass and getting out of bed in the morning must really sting so they take out their frustrations on LEGAL Canadian gun owners. "we didn't have 337 mass shootings last year" - the mass shooting tracker is a fucking joke. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/12/no-there-were-not-355-mass-shootings-this-year/ https://www.vox.com/2015/12/4/9849390/mass-shootings-count Even liberal outlets call out the mass shooting tracker claiming >300 mass shooting per year. "Australia banned guns after a mass shooting, no more mass shootings" - AUSTRALIA DID NOT BAN GUNS - THEY JUST PASSED AN UNGODLY AMOUNT OF RESTRICTIONS AND RIGHT AFTER THAT MONASH UNIVERSITY HAD A SHOOTING THAT ONLY LEFT 3 DEAD SO IT DOESN'T COUNT AS A MASS SHOOTING EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS AN ATTEMPT. AS A RESULT THEY HAD TO PASS EVEN MORE RESTRICTIONS, PROVING CLEARLY THAT THE POST-PORT ARTHUR LAWS WERE NOT THE CATALYST FOR MASS SHOOTING PREVENTION. It's also proof that as soon as the US passes more gun control ANOTHER tragedy will occur and you people will AGAIN force gun control down everyone's throat even though we already gave you what you wanted. Since the 2000's Australian gun owners essentially replaced the guns they gave up after Port Arthur and there' no major issues to report so clearly it's not the guns. Also New Zealand stopped having mass shootings in the 90's and they didn't pass gun control like in Australia.
1
You can't just drop statements and assertively portray them as facts. What's your reasoning, the "common sense" you speak of?
1
@danishbiochem Americans can't have bazookas and grenades at home. Not only are they Destructive Devices because you cannot own explosives encased in a container without asking the federal government for permission, you cannot keep and store explosives without an explosives license (which explosives sellers, mining companies and demolition workers have), asking local law enforcement for permission and have a bomb squad verify that you keep explosives in a storage magazine. So according to your own definition the US already has common sense.
1
The AR was designed for 20-rounders, though.
1
@MilwaukeeF40C that's a controversial statement. Around 50% of NG have combat experience because post-9/11 America made heavy use of them in deployments.
1