Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "LastWeekTonight" channel.

  1. Go to wikipedia, Australian gun control, go to the section called "research". They have sources for multiple studies from the university of Melbourne, British Journal of Criminology, etc etc etc pointing out that the Australian gun control did nothing because gun deaths were already decreasing and the rate did not change. Even the studies that suggest an effect often admit that they can't verify the true relationship because of many factors involved.
    20
  2. Also, you're saying that mass shootings will be stopped without evidence. What did gun control do to stop the mass shootings in France? Nothing. Gun control only stops legal gun owners, not criminals who get guns illegally.
    10
  3. +Martine M thanks for admitting that you don't care about safety, you just want people to be disarmed.
    9
  4. As a fellow Portuguese I am telling you to get the fuck out of this issue. You wouldn't like if the US was telling your country what policies to enact.
    7
  5. +Kasane1337 explosives are regulated by the BATFE and they're widely used for construction, mining, etc and people can be licensed to purchase explosives. Remember the movie HEAT from the 90's where Val Kilmer uses a fake construction ID to buy the explosives to bust open the armored van? I'm sure that these days the process is harder but there are commercial explosives being sold to licensed individuals. Many people use blasting means to remove extremely large boulders or tree stumps for farming purposes.
    6
  6.  @kalyka98  sorry but did you just imply that minorities are prevented from voting because they are criminals? Racist much?
    4
  7. +Jorgetime >"Always a us vs them mentality you americans have" >"us vs them mentality" >"you americans" Uhhhhhhhhh was that ironic?
    3
  8. Understandable, I was talking to someone who was implying the Norway shooter was not called a terrorist despite being a Christian Nationalist or whatever.
    3
  9.  @nicbarrax76  "we have more democracy" "except you don't" "good opinions I don't agree with shouldn't be allowed" """democracy"""
    3
  10. OP calling minorities criminals...
    3
  11. Don't donate to the NRA, they're going to roll over and let gun control pass. Gun Owners of America has a better track record of defending the 2ndA.
    3
  12. +kevtuub but laws are punitive and punish those caught doing something wrong. Gun control tries to catch people before they do something wrong. That's why gun control doesn't work, and other laws do. This is not about being defeatist, it's the way the law works. We don't ban murder because we pretend that murder won't exist, but because we know there are murderers and we need a crime to charge them and bring them to court. Gun control does nothing to help bring to court someone who has already murdered another. It would be like accusing someone of murder and jaywalking. You don't need the jaywalking charge if you have him for murder or any serious felony.
    3
  13. The Norwegian shooter had a Mini-14 - precisely known for being a "hunting style" weapon that avoided weapon bans. I've seen pictures of an Eotech mounted in the rifle, don't know if he used it on the shooting but for fuck's sake, he massacred kids trapped in an island. I don't think he used a scope but even if he did it wouldn't give some kind of upper hand against unarmed teenagers and young adults. No, Sasha W was just one guy selling guns on the dark web under the handle "DWguns". Black Knight you do realize that putting people in jail doesn't cure addiction, right? Portugal doesn't "allow" drugs, it's just that consumption won't send you to jail, court will mandate rehab and if you refuse to go you lose government benefits if you had them. So basically if you want to ruin your life with drugs it's your choice, but if you want help you'll get help. In the US you're sent to jail to fill up the capacity of the for-profit prison system and to be part of a cheap labour force (prisons want non-violent inmates to perform labour while they discard the violent criminals into the street or push them into state prisons). https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/22/opinion/sunday/portugal-drug-decriminalization.html https://news.vice.com/article/ungass-portugal-what-happened-after-decriminalization-drugs-weed-to-heroin http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/portugal-decriminalised-drugs-14-years-ago-and-now-hardly-anyone-dies-from-overdosing-10301780.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/05/why-hardly-anyone-dies-from-a-drug-overdose-in-portugal/?utm_term=.36b11649c3a7 http://www.businessinsider.com/what-happened-when-portugal-decriminalized-all-drugs-2016-3 You claimed I was lying, here's multiple news articles saying exactly what I said.
    3
  14. NaijaCINE it's a cryptocurrency. I haven't heard anything about investing anything or recruiting people.
    2
  15. +Ted Zhang if you eat a burger you just made profit for the industry that sells food linked to obesity, therefore supporting said industry and allowing it to reach more people through marketing, advertising, more attractive prices, more store locations, etc.
    2
  16. +Ted Zhang buying guns doesn't inherently support gun violence because a) gun violence and gun ownership have no correlation; b) if buying guns lead to violence then you'd actually be hurting the industry because if public opinion allowed gun control in style of other countries to be passed, most gun manufacturers would go bankrupt. "This is the gun control equivalent in the fast food industry" No, it's not. The equivalent wouldn't be gun control but inspectors coming to facilities to check on the factory line, and the product coming with safety disclaimers. "If someone eats to the point of obesity and dies of a heart attack, they caused it THEMSELVES" then please inform everyone else on this comments section that they can't use gun suicides to further their agenda because they caused it themselves.
    2
  17. +Allen Lim if muskets were so terrible at warfare then why did they use them? By your logic, your freedom of speech doesn't apply here because they only had spoken word and the early press, not the internet. Bump stocks aren't even suited for warfare. "just" and "extensive" in the same sentence? That's like "only" a small loan of "one million dollars". Public suppressors? They're suppressors, and they still sound over 120 dB. That's louder than a motorcycle going past you, or a loud rock concert. It's almost as loud as a plane landing above you, if you have the reference of having lived near an airport. Suppressors are like the mufflers on cars or motorcycles. They don't silence the vehicle, but stop it from being obnoxious. Guns are obnoxiously loud and cause hearing damage. Suppressors BARELY reduce the round enough to be considered hearing safe, in fact not all suppressor/gun combinations are hearing safe. How about this? Before you start proposing things, you actually learn about the subject. Not that it matters because you don't write laws and you can't guarantee gun laws won't be worse than your proposal anyway.
    2
  18. Automatic weapons are banned in the US and semi-automatics are allowed in almost every country. If the US has to ban semis why do you ask the British, Swiss, Italians, Germans, French, etc etc etc to ban them first? Why should the US have more gun control than Europe?
    2
  19. +نيم محمد fuck off he was labeled a terrorist outright.
    2
  20. Didn't he leave a manifesto and his court antics demonstrated he was clearly being political? Even if the dude was making it up as he went and the attack wasn't meant to have any specific policy in mind didn't he specifically target the young members of a political party he opposed?
    2
  21. +Eli Brown simplex locks and biometrical scanners allow you to grab a gun in a second. Jesus Christ you think that gun owners never came across that issue in decades of use and never made a safe specifically made to unlock quickly? Do you think we're stupid?
    2
  22. Assault rifles are automatic - automatics were banned in the 80's. It's extremely hard to get one.
    2
  23. If you go to another country you gave to follow the law even if you're not a citizen...
    2
  24. +Most Serious Duelist or you can just a) make your own burger or b) buy it from someone who sells them illegally rather than at a chain restaurant, thereby nullifying the usefulness of the test.
    1
  25. +Gottenhimfella "being fearful of their government is acute paranoia (which is a serious mental illness, and grounds for immediate surrender of any weapons" = that shitty kid who owns the toy and makes rules so he always wins and when we call him out on his bullshit he says "waaa I make the rules so I have to win"
    1
  26. +Demetrio Orellana "you need to ignore the militia clause all together" you don't need to ignore it. A militia is necessary for the security of a free state. It's there. A free state, if about to crumble, should have it's own citizens serve as a final backstop to preserve it. But it says that it's the right of the people. It's you who is committing a fallacy by claiming that just because they justified their reasoning then the right is only applicable to that reasoning. "A well balanced breakfast being important for the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed" - who has the right to food, the people or the breakfast? Are you saying that the justification restricts the right to food? People can't eat food outside of breakfast?
    1
  27. +Crag_r actually the hard evidence disputes that conclusion because many studies have come forward finding no link between gun control measures and decline in gun crime. For example, in the UK gun crime rose after the handgun bans. Several studies looked at the impact of the Australian gun control on the crime trends and found that they were decreasing before the laws, and did not accelerate the rate of decrease after introduction so in essence they didn't do anything. University of Melbourne also did an economics study that basically said it was a waste of money to have the buyback because there were no measurable positive outcomes.
    1
  28. Alan S cops carry guns, you claim they don't protect human life. Secret service and bodyguards carry guns, you claim they don't protect human life. Guns were used to end the Third Reich and thus the Holocaust and you claim they don't protect human life.
    1
  29. +Silky Tp they denied the CDC from using taxpayer money to promote gun control/political activism, which was what they were doing. They pretty much made it their official goal. Sorry, but I don't trust people who claim to be doing science but then have a narrative already formulated and simply force the data to meet their hypothesis. Take a look at the Arthur Kellerman studies, and his methodology was used in many more junks science studies - jesus christ living in a rented house or living alone actually increased your chance of getting murdered more than owning a gun according to his studies.
    1
  30. 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
  31. I bet y'all hypocrites don't want felons to get their gun rights restored too.
    1
  32. +ReethCaldarson it is hypocritical because you don't get to pick and choose which rights are okay and which ones aren't. "Also - yes if the person is rehabilitated they should get ALL their rights back" - okay. I will await for the Democrat party to adopt felon gun rights restorations as part of their platform.
    1
  33. +ReethCaldarson "Yes you do get to choose as long" --- within the context of the argument you don't. Rights are rights are rights. Want to change them? Different topic. "as long as it is not a basic human right and the majority votes for a change" - that's laughable. What is or isn't a human right totally depends on cultural factors. The majority can also vote to take away something you think is a basic human right. Your argument doesn't work because you don't have an objective definition for basic human rights and others don't have to respect your personal definition (try to convince places like China or Russia to adopt your definition of basic human rights), but also because democratic vote over people's rights won't necessarily end well. With that out of the way, do you believe in innocent until proven guilty? Do you believe that you have the right to own property, and your property should be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures according to due process? Congratulations, you believe guns are a basic human right. "And what makes you think my or the opinion of any commentator here is linked to the standpoint the democrats take? I'm not a democrat nor do their policies represent me in any way." --- why does that matter? Democrats are the biggest felon rights restoration advocates and thus would welcome the addition of one more right to add to the pile. Even people who don't support Democrats would surely support them in this endeavor.
    1
  34. Exactly. End taxation.
    1
  35. +movie guy the third the guns were assembled from parts and the ammunition was smuggled from Bosnia. Nothing to do with Czech Republic. Breivik of Norway tried to buy them in the Czech Republic but they don't sell to foreigners.
    1
  36. +Julien nl tell that to the Brazilians, Mexicans, etc that their gun control means fewer killed. El Salvador, Honduras, etc. A lot worse than the US in gun homicide, restrictive gun laws and very few guns around. All in the hands of criminals, mostly.
    1
  37. +rockn roll don't try to correct me if I'm right. Only in the UK, Australia, etc where gun laws are somewhat extreme do they restrict semi-autos, and in the UK semi-auto rimfires are legal. Germany allows semi-auto rifles. Switzerland. Czech Republic. France. Portugal. Come on.
    1
  38. +Mads Hvelplund you're using incorrect data which overemphasizes the number of mass shootings by reporting any shooting. Mass shootings means more than 4 people killed, hence the term "mass". By the correct standards there's been 3 in 2017. And Orwell's Hood has a point, population density and the number of cities have a huge influence because that's where crime happens. Simply solving for population differences doesn't give you any bearing on how the population is distributed.
    1
  39. +Victor Ramirez because it hardly ever makes local news, let alone national. The NCVS statistics accept an estimate of 100,000 defensive gun uses, and it's a low-ball estimate. There's subreddits that track local news for defensive gun uses, the /dgu has 7 of them that were reported in the last couple of days (20/21 Oct). You never heard of them. It's estimated that the vast majority don't involve the gun being fired so they're underreported because no crime happened, ie they wouldn't even figure on the /dgu subreddit because no police report was filed and the news weren't alerted to any shooting.
    1
  40. +TheZHpredator that's the thing, from 2009 to 2015 Norway actually had 0.197 mass shootings per million people (roughly 1/5=.2) while in the same period the US had 0.078 per million people. That's the difference being a huge country with 320 million people makes, they have more mass shootings but it's distributed through a much larger population, and if you control for population it shows that mass shootings are statistical anomalies heavily influenced by population size. And it's not cherry picking a country with a very high profile mass shooting because in the same time period Finland, Switzerland, Slovakia, Belgium, France and Austria also had rates of mass shooting per million people higher than the US.
    1
  41. You don't want to compare, because France had had more mass shooting deaths in 2015 than the US during the entire Obama administration. You're not understanding. Switzerland has a very armed populace and is actually an example of guns not increasing crime because despite the abundance of weapons, gun crime and homicide is only marginally higher than places like the UK. The problem is, when you have less population than the US, a single mass shooting makes you have a greater rate of mass shootings. Example, Norway had one and that's already 1/5 million people. The US had 25 in the same time period, but their population is 64 times higher, that's 25/320 million.
    1
  42. You can't say you care about deaths not statistics, when the fact is that without statistics you can't comprehend death. And France did have more deaths than the US in raw numbers, not adjusted for population. So all in all, you don't care about deaths, you just care about propaganda. 1. Why do you people always use carrying as an argument? Most gun owners in the US don't carry. If you want to become a mass shooter you don't get a carry permit, you just take the gun and break the law. 2. Uncontrolled private sales were actually perfectly legal in Switzerland before the pussies in the European Union forced them to change the law. Now the written contract must be sent to the cantonal weapon registry.
    1
  43. +Sam Hayard then please inform the Australians because they keep bragging about not having mass shootings but in Monash, just a few years after the new gun laws, 7 people were shot. At least ask for consistency. "you've actually had 1516 mass shootings in since Jan 1st 2013" no, that's a lie because I've actually looked at the tracker in the past and it was a clusterfuck, they're counting shootings with events that involved just 3 people wounded 0 killed, gang fights, one guy defending himself from attackers (they were caught including something about a taxi or limo driver who used a gun in self-defense as a mass shooting a couple of years ago), etc.
    1
  44. 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
  45. "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
  46.  @nicbarrax76  no it means it becomes impossible to reach everyone. Stop playing dumb.
    1
  47. Scott, that's one of the big mistakes people make which is not using flashlights to achieve positive ID. Or just turn on the lights. Also, military forces have had that problem and developed signs and countersigns. You have the advantage of knowing your family's voices so you don't even need to set up the countersign, can just scream a question and listen for the answers to know where everyone is and go after the person(s) not answering.
    1
  48. MrJahka if you wanted my property, should have broken in while I was at work. Break in with me in the house, I can't assume it's property crime. It's not a matter of being targeted for assassination, it's the risk created by a criminal.
    1
  49. scottthewaterwarrior can't climb out the window on my building. An educated guess that you're in the bedroom. Footsteps. Plenty of factor will give away your position.
    1
  50. +Scotty Rotten if you read any study showing that (I think it was Arthur Kellerman who started that shit) you'll see that they're completely ruined by reverse causation. Even Kellerman was accused of releasing truncated data rather than the raw data, and when he caved in he admitted that it wasn't 43 times like he claimed but 3.4/3.8 times or something like that. Massive backpedaling. All the studies done that show that "fact" are based on the same methodology.
    1