Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "LastWeekTonight"
channel.
-
20
-
10
-
9
-
7
-
6
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The thing is, the CDC can study guns (in fact they were ordered to do so by the Obama administration in 2013 - and it backfired because the findings did not support the narrative), they can't just advocate for gun control. Everyone else is free to study guns. There's privately funded research. The medical side refuses to acknowledge literature from criminology and sociology and sticks to medical literature on guns, which suffers from methodology problems.
"make a recommendation"
But that's exactly what they shouldn't do. This wasn't a CDC-funded study because it happened after the "ban" but a study came out claiming that great reductions in gun crime could be made with just three policies. They included microstamping and ballistic fingerprinting through fired cartridges. It's widely known that not only these laws are largely unenforceable/ineffective in the very few places they have been passed, but that the very mechanism they work through changes over time due to wear of parts during functioning, fouling/deposits, cleaning, etc.
The study only "found" these recommendations to be effective because they love recommending stuff that allows unreasonable litigious action against gun manufacturers, forces them to change technology (smart guns), forces the government to adopt legislation that makes it harder to obtain gun parts (if everyone was able to just get a replacement firing pin it would render microstamping laws irrelevant), etc. - laws that would slowly undermine the markets.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Oh my god could you have a shred of intellectual honesty? If Australia had a few shootings before gun control, and a few shootings afterwards, then clearly gun control didn't do shit, did it? The "Australian argument" stands on the "fact" that gun control was passed and shootings ended. If you want to preserve the actual definition of mass shooting rather than the made up one, then the US does not have shootings 9 out of 10 days.
"even if it halves the amount of deaths by gun violence" gun violence HALVED since 1993 and guns are flying off the shelves. Clearly showing that the guns aren't the factor.
"then surely that's worth at least ALLOWING an informed discussion into the idea?" We allow the discussion all the time, it's the media that won't allow it. They only show their side of the story and when they do show ours, they edit the footage.
"There's too much old, white money behind it" Laughable. Women and minorities are the fastest growing demographics in American gun ownership, young people are actually more rabid gun rights advocates because old people only care about their hunting rifles and their clay pigeons.
"Super weird to watch from an outside perspective" that's weird, because I am European and I stand against gun control and I stand against the EU stealing our sovereignty and trying to dictate how our gun laws should be. In fact I have been thinking about sending my support to the Swiss equivalent of the NRA even though I am not Swiss, because they're one of the last bastions when it comes to gun rights.
1
-
"After Australia introduced their gun regulations, gun crime, mass shooting and gun-related death dropped dramatically" And it had been dropping for several years prior, not to mention that many countries also had a drop in the 90's.
"The fact that there was a single shooting" No, there's been several. I just used Monash as an example because it was the first after Port Arthur. And if we're only counting "wounded" I can't even find you a number because without deaths, it won't figure as a massacre and I can't find it.
"The fact that there was a single shooting years later is simply an application of Murphy's law, the same way an anti-bacterial spray kills 99.9% of germs" Yeah killing 99% in a petri dish with millions of bacteria isn't on the same level as like 10 shootings before gun control, 6 shootings after or whatever (I'm just using example numbers here). You couldn't even assume a 40% decrease from that because mass shootings are events over time, statistical aberrations, and not a defined bacterial count you can see a definite change on. That argument is so unbelievably dishonest that it borders on "desperate reaching".
"Secondly, if you did your research properly you'd understand that crime in general had dropped significantly between 1993 and 2010, and not just in America" I have just mentioned that earlier, and you will use that argument to excuse America's drop in violence while attributing the drop in violence in Australia to the gun reforms. Slick.
It's also funny that you come up with other factors (literally only the lead one is correct, the bunch are a crock of shit - same with the "crack epidemic" argument) to explain the US's drop but attribute Australia's solely to gun control.
"Also what's wrong with 'halving' gun crime, and then halving it again?" because you provide the conclusion that gun control, in America specifically, will cause that "halving" without a single premise to back it up (or any solution to the 300 million gun already in civilian hands, mostly unregistered, that are completely impervious to future gun control unless voluntary registered - good luck, the NY SAFE act had a compliance rate of 4% last time I checked). Even if you have "Australia arguments" or "UK arguments" or even "Japan arguments" to defend your position on gun control but those instances are not applicable to the US at any rate so you can't promise me that halving you claim.
"I like the way you took the term literally as well" > proceeds to tell me it wasn't in the literal sense > "nationalist white men" > proceeds to admit that he was using old and WHITE in the literal sense. So you're saying white nationalists are using the NRA to pay Black people like MrColionNoir to tell minorities to arm themselves and fight the racist assholes like Sarah Silverman who "parody" the NRA by implying that minorities are too dangerous to own guns? Not to mention that gun control in the US started with the purpose of disarming freed black men? Boy those Klansmen must be wearing Kevlar robes if they want to face armed blacks. Jesus Christ just admit you said something stupid rather than dancing around the "it was not literal"/"by the way I truly meant that the NRA is a bunch of white supremacists".
I also like the way you mock my statements with your smug sense of superiority when you're demonstrably wrong on almost every thing you said.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"of yours" I'm not American. You're right, it's a state issue because it falls under intrastate commerce. So it's left up to the state and many states don't want that. The federal government cannot enforce it until it becomes interstate. But my point was, what you just said isn't accurately described by the word "increased". How do you "increase" a background check? Some people call them "extended background checks" and to me that means something like extending their reach so they can check if you ran with scissors in kindergarten or something, extending the research they perform on the governmental lists. The more "accurate" nomenclature for what you want is "universal background checks" but you could just say "end private sales" - all sales go through the gun shop. That's essentially what you're asking for.
Yeah, drugs shouldn't be regulated. The higher street price makes it profitable to murder over drugs, remember Al Capone and Prohibition? "Less" criminals have access to illegal drugs? You're joking, right? Criminals smuggle tons of the shit. In fact the high price pays for the expensive smuggling operations, if drug prices plummeted cartels would have trouble affording all the drivers, mules and bribes to the police. The fact is that drugs are dirt cheap where they're produced locally. The more middlemen in the way, the more expensive it gets and the more impure (and therefore less safe to consume) it becomes. Prohibition/War on Drugs increases murder rates because criminals aren't paying street price for the drugs. They're selling at that price, which means that they bought them for much cheaper - they're murdering each other over drugs exactly because profit margins are so high. And the people who smuggled them through Mexico and into the US, for example, paid even less than American gangs. Like, did you actually believe you have a point there when everyone with half a brain knows that decriminalization and treating drugs as a health problem rather than a crime problem will actually decrease hard drug use, overdoses and HIV/Hep C transmission?
"how about 5000-10000 dollar fine and 10 year imprisonment" congratulations, you've probably deterred the tiny minority of collectors who are willing to break the law to privately collect historical guns or something and who wouldn't hurt anyone anyway. The people who buy guns to MURDER other people are already looking at 25 to life so 10 years is nothing to them. And by the way, we know that harder punishments do not necessarily prevent violent crime because it's widely known that states with capital punishment do not have lower murder rates as a result.
"And if you lower the speed limit, cars would be slower thus making it harder for a escaping criminal to navigate" if cars are all moving at the same relative speed to each other (near zero unless someone is overtaking) it wouldn't make a difference.
1
-
1
-
+ZoooZov mandar-me emigrar? Não sejas piegas.
That's not really true. The terrorists in France didn't get their guns from a complex terrorist network (which was exactly what make explosives harder to use due to surveillance), they got them from a guy called Sasha W. in Germany. If you want to commit a mass shooting just find your own Sasha who will sell you guns. The guy from Norway who killed 69 people got his guns the legal way. And if you divide the number of shootings per million people there's a few non-EU countries in Europe which have greater frequency of mass shootings than the US. But since they're smaller countries, everything is smaller scale do you don't hear about it.
You do realize that Portugal cut addiction by 50% in one decade by decriminalizing drugs, right? You do realize that just like the US has a peak in murders due to Prohibition of alcohol, the War on Drugs is responsible for the peak of gun murders felt through decades and only started declining in 1993. Making drugs a crime actually is part of the reason the US has high gun murder. Also, doing drugs only hurts you just like being alcoholic only hurts you. The stealing, the driving under the influence, etc that's all your personal responsibility. We don't put people in jail for buying wine, they only get in trouble after doing something that hurts others. We don't make murder illegal because we think it magically makes murder go away, but to have a reason to charge someone and bring them to court. So yeah, owning a gun shouldn't be penalized, that's not the same as decriminalizing murder.
"The article does refer that it is going by the NARROWEST definition of mass shooting. That is ONE definition. Not the ONLY ONE." I don't care about the wrong definitions. If we're going by the mass shooting tracker that has been PROVEN to count BB gun injuries, knife-related incidents and gang warfare that lead to people getting killed in the same location *but at different times*. Some parts of American cities are borderline 3rd world.
"The fact that shootings that start as other crimes is also ignored... also laughable. And so on." By that argument Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, etc have a ton of mass shootings because of all the gangs shooting each other.
"I mean, who the hell cares how it starts? Do the people that end up killed matter less?" apparently you don't care when it's terrorism. It's not that the deaths don't matter, but if you're going to count bystanders in the middle of gang warfare (which again, is fueled by making drugs illegal), which also happens a lot in South American countries independently of gun laws, you're only admitting that the problem won't be solved by gun laws but by lifting people out of poverty, ending the revolving door prison system and the exploitation of the poor and the minorities as labour when in prison, a cultural and social shift, etc.
"I mean gun control isn't meant to just stop shootings on a large scale. Is it ok if a random shooter just kills one single innocent life?" the problem is that you're stating as if it was established fact that gun control would prevent that death in the USA, where there's a shit ton of gun murder in cities like Chicago despite their more restrictive gun laws and there's already over 300 million firearms, most of them impossible to trace to their current owners.
1
-
"Mini 14 is a hunting calibre rifle" it fires .223 Remington which is virtually identical in performance to 5.56 NATO. In fact 5.56 NATO rifles are able to operate .223 Remington easily (but not the other way around). So an American Utoya shooter wouldn't have any advantage.
"he would have access to a 100 round M416 " the 100 round magazine is often a piece of shit, it actually jammed on the Aurora Theater shooter and he switched to a shotgun. The HK MR556 (416s are not legal for sale in the US) is not any more lethal than the Mini-14, both are semi-automatic, magazine fed, air cooled intermediate caliber rifles with comparable performance.
"Your point was about how EU laws ain't shit, but it turns out they are shit. It's not a complex terrorist cell, but that's a gun dealer" What's your point? My point was that if you want to create a mass shooting in Europe, you just need to find an illegal dealer. And terrorists have switched from explosives to just buying guns from dealers because it's actually easier.
"You need to ween off of the drug by being able to take it in gradually smaller quantitites without having to worry about anything over time" and that's why they're testing weed to counter the effects of heroine width-drawl in the US. Sucks that the US government forces studies to be performed with shit ass weed in many states which doesn't represent the state of legal medicinal marijuana.
"Because you said the government legalized drugs" In the US?
"That's such bullshit" They even admit it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsbcPTIDFJc
"Nobody would even buy half the shit they make in prison, the very idea that products are made in prison is bogus" Use inmates to cook rather than hire contractors that deal in mess halls/cafeteria/whatever. You're getting money to house the inmates, but you give the labour of housing people to the inmates themselves. If you don't want to work and you're just a criminal troublemaker, they'll try to push you into a state prison so that you become the government's problem and not theirs. It's true.
1
-
+Black Knight the Mini-14 is absolutely a semi-automatic rifle and .223 is dimensionally very similar to 5.56 NATO, to the point it's interchangeable if the barrel is rated for 5.56.
"Instead of having a crappy hunting rifle from the 19 fucking 50s, he would have a 2017 Heckler and fucking Koch which can be hand held and is designed to be fired 30 or 20 times without interruption, while a hunting rifle is designed to be fired with a scope, after careful aiming, ONCE" the HK MR566 is a piston conversion of the AR15 which is a downscalled version of the AR-10 design from the 50's. In fact the AR-15 patent was sold to Colt in 1959 so the AR15 is a 50's gun, modernized.
"One is a hunting rifle designed for scoped one shots" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ej39umHaB08 it has open sights and there's a full auto version of the Mini-14 called the AC556.
"it was a gun dealer" yeah. so? That's where you get illegal guns, from illegal dealers. If you want a legal gun you get one from a legal dealer. A dealer is just a person, one who has an occupation that involves firearms, but it's just a person you need to find to have a gun. Obviously that asking cashiers, bank tellers or bus drivers won't get you a gun, you go to someone who sells guns.
"But since there are no normal over the counter dealers" The Norway guy got his guns legally from a over the counter dealer.
"Because manufacturing explosives is a chemical job. It requires actual skills, not just connections" A lot of times they use straight ammonium nitrate sold in many countries as fertilizer initiated by a small amount of commercial explosive used in demolitions and mining operations, to avoid the chemical part of the job. The connections to import large amounts of fertilizer from impoverished countries that rely on ammonium nitrate fertilizer and divert small amounts of explosives from the legal channels make it an operation that is bound to be picked up by the counter terrorist agencies, when just setting up a meet with an underground gun dealer is much lower profile.
"In Portugal." Yeah but I clearly switched the subject and was talking about the US.
"that's just to help out with the running." for profit - if they're cutting costs then surely the state should pay them less. That was just one example. Inmates grow vegetables for Whole Foods, sew McDonald's uniforms, etc.
1
-
The Mini-14 initially had problematic barrels and still has an undeserved reputation for being inaccurate so your opinion that it's a long range rifle is pretty funny.
"5.56 NATO is notorious because its carried in AR 15 type guns, and is used in military conflicts. The m14, while being standard military issue........was issued back in the 50s or something. It has no full auto function, and wouldn't even dare think of one" the M14 was literally designed with a full auto function for walking fire but reality came down hard and the Army gave up because it wasn't effective. If you buy old surplus M14s many times you will see that the receiver was modified to remove the full auto switch.
It's not a tractor and an Atom comparison. Both spit bullets the same weight at almost the same velocity. The differences are merely dimensional.
" Mini 14 would pass for muster as military issue" The Mini-14 is literally a downscaled M14 which is more or less a downscaled M1 Garand. It has military weapon heritage and it was literally proposed for military service as the AC556, but only a couple of countries bought it for their armed forces.
"So it wasn't just some random dude called Sasha W whom you just find on the street! You can't claim that these guys are just all over the place and the EU's laws are so lax." What's your problem? It's not that the laws are lax, it's that these people ignore the law? My point is that they just found a guy who had guns for sale. He sold guns on the deep web according to the news. But you can find them in the street. A few years ago in my country a couple of journalists went to the streets to ask around for illegal guns. 2 hours and 50€ later they had a gun in their hands, just from asking around.
"THAT'S MY POINT, THE TERRORISTS HAD TO USE ILLEGAL DEALERS TO DO WHAT THEY HAD TO DO" And the deaths don't count because the guns were illegal? You only care when the guns are legal? My point is that if you want to kill, you can have guns easily. Of course, it's against the law, but so is killing. In the US even the Columbine kids broke 21 gun laws in their quest for arming themselves. Criminals don't care.
"But it isn't a random guy on the street who has guns because apparently the EU has no gun law and guns are just hanging off of everybody's ears." Illegal gun dealers ignore the law. Our restrictive laws only bother the legal gun owners. It's not "lax" - it's that criminals don't obey the gun laws.
"And the gun that he got was probably the most military grade hunting rifle they had." and he killed more people than the Las Vegas guy. So why does the "grade" matter?
"but you aren't either, so save your armchair bomb expert-ing for somebody who can't tell the difference. A bomb takes actual knowledge of explosives" Why are you being hostile? Anyone and their mother knows that fertilizer bombs are the most common when you want a large volume bomb such as a truck bomb. It's completely impractical to synthesize any explosive in large amounts, but if you can obtain or purify Ammonium Nitrate you have a powerful explosive that is sold by the hundreds of pounds. Many bombs in the Middle East are straight AN because impoverished countries don't ban straight AN from being sold. The IRA used AN. The Oklahoma City bombing used fertilizer. Even the Norwegian guy only made a 1.5kg booster charge, the vast majority of explosive charge was obtained from commercial fertilizer.
Knowledge of explosives means that you need to bring one of your bomb-makers to Europe, have him meet with the terrorists, make the bomb, and then return to the Middle East without getting caught. If you can get fertilizer, and a few pounds of commercial explosive to use as booster and the blasting caps used in mining, it's "plug-and-play" and you can send your retarded terrorists on a mission without risking losing your bomb-makers.
"I think you were talking about Portgual being a good example of drug legalization working, and I'm saying that maybe not that many were addicted to drugs to begin with, and that this was a trumped up statistic that there was such a huge problem with drugs." That's why the decrease is shown in percentage and now raw numbers. If the country was bigger and there were more addicts, 50% less addicts would still mean a big improvement.
"Maybe the state wasn't paying them enough in the first place, and that's why we got this mess, and why they want to put criminals to working in the cafeteria." The definition of for-profit prison systems is that they take inmates for profit. If they were getting profit and they're making even more on top of it, that's a HUUUUGE incentive into increasing the incarceration rates. Look it up, the US has the highest incarceration rate.
"are extremely infrequent" look up prison farms. It's way more frequent than you think.
"Relax with the sympathy for people who actually do bad things in thsi world, kill rape and steal from people" the problem is that a huge percentage of prisoners never did any of that and are there for drug related reasons.
1
-
1
-
I am not American and I don't know the standards of manufacture of the Ruger corporation. But for decades the Mini-14 was considered an inaccurate piece of shit and the problem only seems to have been ameliorated in probably the late 90's or early 2000s. That means that the old "inaccurate" barrels were sold for decades but if you buy a new one it's pretty acceptable (still not as accurate as the AR which is the industry standard as you can easily get 1 MOA with off the shelf components).
You claimed it was made for long range shooting. For decades it wasn't suitable for long range shooting with many people who shot them in the past citing an average of 5 MOA. It's still not a sub-MOA rifle as it averages 2-3 MOA depending on ammo. Is it accurate? You'll hit your target at 50 yards, even 100. Long range? With 3 MOA you have way better options.
"In other words, was it known to be inaccurate as a GUN or as a long range rifle?" a deviation of 5 minutes of angle is considered inaccurate as a rifle... For long range shots it's borderline unacceptable. A deviation of 5 MOA is enough to make you miss a man-sized torso at 200 yards even though you were on target.
" It wasn't reality that came down hard, people realized that the M14 is a glorified hunting rifle. " it was literally a magazine-fed Garand on 7.62 NATO. The M1 Garand, you know, the rifle that did just fine at killing Nazis?
"so fucking what, a tank can very easily have a 20mm full auto turret on it, and fire it at the same rate as an M14" https://gundigest.com/wp-content/uploads/2_AR-15-223-vs-556.jpg this diagram shows the difference between 5.56 NATO and .223 Remington. Are you saying that M14s and 20m autocannons fire the same round? Because .223 and 5.56 can be fired from the same gun. A M14 can't fire 20mm. An AK4 can't chamber .50 BMG. But .223 and 5.56 are interchangeable, the only reason you can't shoot 5.56 NATO on .223 barrels is because the throat angle is more aggressive and will lead to overpressure.
"The differences are not merely dimensional," and yet they are: http://www.americanweaponscomponents.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/223vs556-e1446155529154.jpg
"Which is a hunting rifle, type thing. M1 were used by sharpshooters to aim, then fire, one shot rounds. They weren't used on the front lines with MP 40s." Jesus Christ the M1 Garand was a frontline weapon. MP40? The American submachine gun in service was the Thompson and smg was issued to officers and rear echelon troops. Infantrymen got M1 Garands.
"Some heritages are longer than tohers." so you're denying that the Garand is a military design?
"Same reasoning, it's an old gun, it could pass muster for military service, during the time of the M1. Namely WORLD WAR FUCKING 2. Pre-Nuke time." Like the caliber fired by the Mini-14 didn't even exist back then, it only came out in 1963. It was only produced in 1973. The Bermudas purchased their Mini-14s in 1983. WWII ended in 1945. Your timeline is all wrong.
"We were talking about Sasha W, you made him sound like some hunter who had the freedom to sell guns to terrorists. People don't have that kind of freedom in the EU."
In no way was that my intention and I apologize if my comment was misunderstood.
My point is that they did't get guns because of a government connection or a large terrorist network that only terrorists can access
My point is that they found someone who sold guns and contacted him - I posted his name because that's who he was, just a random guy who decided that his way to make a living was the black market
My point is that if you want to commit a mass shooter you don't need to be a terrorist - just find your own Sasha the weapons guy
"You telling me a psycho with time like that couldn't find a gun but this guy could?" He was a foreigner, which probably makes it harder for the locals to trust him. Probably thought he was interpol or something. Anyway he was asking for grenades (which is kinda weird if the dealer doesn't trust you enough) and AK47s despite of the fact that the Vz.58 is more popular in the Czech Republic.
"I am saying that the statistic is made up and you are talking about how good decriminalization is, which I doubt it was" Then there's no point in discussing it.
"the costs of running a cafeteria is like 5 people." you have no idea how lucrative those contracts are. If the state is paying you contractor money and you just stick 5 inmates in there you're pocketing hundreds of thousands of dollars at the end of the year.
"They might say they are" somehow I don't think studies get past peer review by reporting on the crimes committed by asking prisoners rather than actually looking up DOJ and BJS statistics
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1