Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "Peter van Uhm: Why I chose a gun" video.

  1. +Der Fliegende Holländer if you were friends with the party, you could own anything. If you were a citizen, you could own firearms that were not for military service. But they raised the age limit to own weapons and CONVENIENTLY considered that the people they wanted to exterminate did not count as German citizens. They armed those who agreed with them, and disarmed those they hated. That's what authoritarians do. Your point is also disingenuous. In my country I can also get a permit to carry. It will never be awarded to me because the police will disqualify my appeal. Meanwhile the US has states that don't require permits (constitutional carry) and states that are SHALL ISSUE. In Germany you can also apply for a carry permit, but unless you've suffered an attempted assassination or you're a wealthy politician/celebrity, you will never get it.
    6
  2. +GregTom2 your ignorance of history is appalling. The war wasn't to end slavery, abolitionism grew during the Civil War but did not provoke it. The war was to prevent the Southern states from seceding. You may not know this but Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware were states that allowed slavery but aligned themselves with the Union. And the Emancipation Proclamation did not apply to territories under Union control. Do not get me wrong, the Confederacy fought for slavery. But the Civil War wasn't meant to end it. >"and if the confederate rebels had not had access to armement" The Confederacy was composed of states with full blown military forces. They had the monopoly on their own armed forces. Jesus Christ stop spreading your BS.
    4
  3. +Markus Rubach you're mistaken. Aircraft cannot hold ground. They cannot stand on a corner and arrest people. Governments will always need people, made of flesh and bone, to act as jack-booted thugs to oppress people in their daily lives. And all jack-booted thugs depend on them acting with impunity to carry out their deeds. Imagine you need to take someone to a black site to be tortured. But you know that the moment you bust down that door a bullet might splatter your brains in the hallway. You can't act with impunity when there's guns. You can't arrest people with megaphones and plastering walls with propaganda because it might be a trap and the moment you step out of your vehicle a sniper in a window somewhere can take you out.
    3
  4. +qwamity/Escef and Japan is culturally different from anywhere in the Western world. You could airdrop crates of machine guns in Japan that people wouldn't shoot each other simply because there's no reason to. Not even the Yakuza like to shoot people or give guns to their street level gangsters, despite of the fact that authorities know that they deal with illegal firearms in the order of hundreds of thousands. Iraq was pretty much an active war zone for over a decade and was recently attacked by Daesh, not only do they have huge economic and social issues there's also in-fighting between Muslim groups. You really think that you can extrapolate conclusions on gun control from Iraq?
    2
  5. "There were more guns in the Soviet countryside during his reign than in the US" Stolen Red Army stuff doesn't count because it wasn't obtained legally, and from the sheer economic and industrial standpoint it's simply not possible. The US had 101.5 guns per 100 people in like 2006, with the gun sales under the Obama administration I've seen values quoted as high as 112 per 100. It's simply not possible that typical "countryside weapons" were produced at a rate higher than their own population. And like, if there were indeed that many guns, then there would be at least documented records or even living witnesses of state agents getting blasted in the chest whenever they tried to starve entire villages by stealing their grain or taking people into Gulags. "me and my Ukranian family will die anyway and we have more guns than people but let's not shoot these Russian fuckers" - sounds like totally something that would happen "More legitimate states were toppled by an armed populace than saved" That's a intellectually dishonest statement because all states are legitimate as long as they're the de facto ruling state. North Korea is a legitimate state because it has a legitimate claim over the territories to the North. The North Vietnamese, upon unification with the South, became the recognized state of the whole Vietnam by virtue of conquest, hence legitimate. Israel is a legitimate state. Iran is a legitimate state. Britain was the legitimate state ruling over it's colonies, and it was brought down by the American revolutionary war. It was a legitimate state toppled, and I don't see anyone crying about it. A state being legitimate doesn't mean it's "good".
    2
  6. +drew anderson except the USA no country has more guns per people. It's not the only "modern" country to have that, it's the ONLY. In 2nd place is Yemen with 0.8 guns for every person.
    1
  7. +qawamity/Escef by the way, Devid Hemenway, anti-gun researcher for the Harvard School of Public Health, admits that there are between 55 and 80 thousand defensive gun uses every year, and the NCVS cites 100,000/year. We're talking about surveys that were biased against gun owners and measure the rate of defensive gun usage differently to give us low-ball estimates.
    1
  8. +Dan Wendelstein I know a few Swiss gun owners, and they're all... "fetishistic", as you describe it. " Therefore, only very few people feel like they have to resort to crime to make ends meet" but poverty doesn't cause crime. Honest people trying to make ends meet do not resort to violence. Violent crime, while we don't understand violence completely, stems from underdeveloped frontal lobes. Studies that looked into prison populations found out that there was a correlation between criminality and people growing up near lead contamination, which harmed their decision making abilities. Because violent criminals make bad decisions, they end up having to live near poor people, which creates a correlation between poverty and crime. "Conscripts and reservists get to take their rifles and ammo home with them, but once there, they will spent most of their time locked in a safe in the cupboard somewhere," I don't understand the point. The weapon is there for the taking and if someone is planning to get arrested or commit suicide after a massacre, they don't fear getting in trouble for taking the rifle out of the safe. It's the equivalent of saying "in switzerland they can have guns but you see, using those guns to kill is illegal" as if Americans are asking for the right to commit mass shootings.
    1
  9. Matthew, a "successful" state plunders it's own people, it's law serves to benefit itself and the "rights" and "freedoms" they protect were taken away and sold back to us under the form of "privileges". The state monopoly on violence is not any different from a mob's territorial control. They fight outsiders so that they may not extort their subjects. The people did not "grant" him the means, the state did.
    1
  10. the volksturm was armed by the state monopoly on violence. it was nowhere near being an independent force comprised of an armed populace. "The disarmament of civilians in the end helps protect them against soldiers, because soldiers won't see them as enemies, and therefore will try to keep them out of harm's way (international laws of war)." Your whole point depends on the enemy respecting the laws of war. Combat medics would be signaled and wouldn't carry weapons in theory so they wouldn't be targeted, but for example in Afghanistan medics carry weapons because the Taliban would shoot them anyway. Disarmament doesn't protect anyone, only in the la-la-land of political rhetoric.
    1
  11. +doonglerules you do know that 5.56 NATO rifles can be fed civilian .223 Rem ammo, right?
    1
  12. You buy them at the gun shop.
    1