Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "How New Zealand Banned Guns In 28 Days | VICE News Tonight Special" video.

@DeshaunIsAmazing pepper spray is bullshit (wind can defeat the spray and blow it back to your face) and tasers will fail if the prongs do not pierce the clothing. Look it up, there's people not going down from tasers on video.
3
@inceldestroyer1069 "its harder to reliably kill someone with a car than a gun" - bruh you must have missed all the trucks of peace in the last few years "yall act like the US/NZ gov is gonna storm your house and murder your family" - one guy already died, although he seems to have killed himself once he was surrounded by police "Cars are an important economic sector and vital component to everyday life for money" - that just makes you sound that you care more about money than lives. Don't give us shit about guns when literally anyone in society will make excuses for things they like/bring them convenience even at the cost of others' lives.
3
@yuhboris304 I am so glad, all the people killed by cars and their respective families are smiling with joy because cars weren't actually mean to kill! Since the object wasn't designed to kill, the death wasn't bad! Yaaaaaay!
3
@_Atzin "guns are not a form of transportation and are not integral to the functioning of the nation," - seems to me that you're worshiping transportation and "society" at the cost of human lives. You can't give gun owners shit for not wanting to give up anything when you'll bend over backwards with shitty excuses to defend the things you like. "for most cases having a 5 round limit on your magazine will not effect anything substantially." - then you haven't been charged by a pack of hogs nor been attacked by three people knowing that each can take 5 shots before they have an effect on them.
2
@unclejoe8310 it's actually easier to make them full auto than semi-auto. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dv33pCUkLRM
2
Nah, it clearly shows that the government is one-sided and is not allowing dissent on the matter. If it only takes one bullet then why did hunters use double- and even triple-barreled guns before semi-auto guns were reliable enough? Why did wealthy hunters have a "caddy" who would carry a second gun so they could fire several shots in quick succession? Big game hunting was typically done with two shot weapons. The first shot would be a hollowpoint to maximize damage and hopefully kill the animal. The second shot a solid brass projectile, because there was a great change the animal would turn on you and charge and you wanted a solid projectile to punch through the cranium. And normally you'd have a hunting guide ready to serve as backup.
2
@JewTube001 nice strawman
2
@JewTube001 if you had arguments, you'd use them instead of spitting useless garbage. Hold that L.
2
@ninjafruitchilled "You do not need semi automatic rifles for hunting" - then why is it legal to hunt with semi-automatic weapons in many countries? Why are there double-barrel and even three barrel weapons made for quick follow up shots made before we got semi-automatic designs reliable enough? "These particular weapons aren't even good in self defense situations" - please post your credentials in the topic of self-defense if you're making claims like that.
2
@ninjafruitchilled "The U.S. banned fully automatic weapons a long time ago, after crime syndicates used them to wage urban warfare against the police." - bullshit. The height of gang warfare was 1994. Incidents like the North Hollywood shootout involved illegally made fully automatic weapons after the automatic ban. In the 1980's machine gun usage was rare even in Miami, which was the capital of machine guns due to the drug trade. And by the way, regarding LEGALLY OWNED machineguns there have only been 2-3 homicides committed with them since 1934. One of them was a police officer murdering an informant. So basically the ban of legalized machine guns was useless because criminals always used illegal ones.
2
@daikucoffee5316 "The point is that nobody needs such high capacity magazines for non war purposes." - how so? 50 Cent got shot 9 times and he's still around. If you get attacked by 3 people (and criminals use numbers to overwhelm victims) and you need 9 shots for each, what kind of magazine should you have? A 5 round one?
1
@erikliubakka6514 "They didn't ban guns based on cosmetics? They banned based on RPM" - okay, what RPM did they pick as the limit, then? "magazine capacity" - magazines are just boxes with springs. You can weld multiple magazines together, or even 3d print them.
1
@sykessaul123 "Being able to fire multiple rounds in quick succession has no valid use in any country not embroiled in a civil war" - but shotguns fire multiple projectiles. "Small calibre, small magazine handguns and semi-auto rifles used for actual sporting reasons should also be allowed but only in secure lockups in shooting centres" - you do realize that criminals could then just steal an excavator or bulldozer from a construction site and burst through the secure lockups at night, right? In the US criminals have robbed gun stores by bursting through walls. Concentrating the guns makes them a juicy target.
1
@whylife5339 "thursand American die every year because of mass shootings." - source?
1
that's not the point at all. Laws are what we use to justify the use of state force to bring people to justice. If you advocate for a law that uses force against a person who isn't doing any harm that's pretty foul. Certain crimes are harmful, other crimes are victimless.
1
why? Because you're refusing to think? You have free speech. You could use free speech for libel, slander or even to spread propaganda that gets people killed. We punish you when you commit crimes with your speech, but we don't make speech illegal. We have many household chemicals that are poison. But we only punish you if you put them in someone's food. We don't make ownership of chemicals illegal. The question at hand here is that people should not be punished for the mere act of owning weapons, but you people are comparing it to murder and pretending we don't want a law against murder.
1
@caroselloshow5615 "im not talking about banning guns for defense Im talking about banning those weapons that are clearly not for defense" - clearly? Why? Could you explain why you feel certain weapons are not for defense? I want to hear your opinion, what YOU think.
1
@caroselloshow5615 "It’s ridiculous to vote and support a government and at the same time fear it because it could become a tiranny." - Well, when Trump got elected people were running around saying Hitler was just elected. I find it funny that conservatives/pro-gun people are told they're crazy for thinking a tyrant could be elected, but then the Democrats said Bush Jr was Hitler, McCain was a racist warmonger (which was true, but now they say he was a hero), Mitt Romney was just like Hitler, Trump is just like Hitler, etc.
1
@caroselloshow5615 "children were able to buy an assault rifle" - well, no. Children cannot buy any type of firearm and assault rifles are banned in the US. "where even a scheduled criminal was able to buy weapons and simply because there was no control and no regulation on it" - but there is control and regulation. When you purchase a weapon at the gun store you are forced to perform a background check and you are ran through several lists. If you are a criminal you get flagged and the gun cannot be sold. Sometimes people were technically on lists but were not put on the computerized system. Happened with a guy who was in the Air Force and got discharged but his discharge was never filed into the system. The regulation existed, but it wasn't enforced. "Because they are educated on how to use a gun and its safety issues." - the vast majority of gun homicide in the US happens from criminals killing each other. It's not a matter of education or safety because criminals get their guns illegally and accidental deaths are actually low in the US. Safety isn't the issue because a killer can understand gun safety and still gun down people because he wants to kill, he wants to be "unsafe". Japan is a different case altogether. They're pretty polite, respectful people and they have high degrees of social control. You could airdrop crates of weapons into Japan and people wouldn't start shooting each other. Even the most violent Yakuza gangs, which are perfectly willing to beat people up or cut fingers off, are restrained in the use of firearms because they see themselves as respectable businessmen who don't want unnecessary police attention. Yakuza gangs are involved in arms trafficking, but they rarely use them.
1
@caroselloshow5615 "clearly not for defense" - okay but why are they not for defense and why is that so clear? I want to understand your thought process. "the AR 15 that was specifically created for the military." - sure, but muskets were also made for the military, revolvers were also made for the military, shotguns were also made for the military (in fact their use in the trenches in WWI was so effective that the Germans petitioned to consider it a war crime). All kinds of weapons were made for the military and civilians used them too. "Im pretty sure that a semi automatic rifle like this is not used for defense" - but could you explain why? You are saying things as if they were obvious while trying to avoid an explanation. You do understand that there's a divide, right? In my mind, the AR-15 is the perfect self-defense weapon. But you think it has characteristics that make it different from other weapons and I want to know what you think about semi-automatic rifles. I mean, I am concerned that a mass murderer can get a van or a truck. I am concerned that a mass murderer could throw molotov cocktails into a crowded bar. I am concerned about pressure cooker bombs duct taped to propane tanks. But I can't live all my life concerned about what other people do with the dangerous tools we are allowed to own. 2 - So by being neutral I am confirming anything? If you want a confirmation, I am an anarchist for moral reasons and I don't vote. I don't trust politicians and I don't believe in imposing my will on other people through ballots. But that's beside the point. This isn't about me. And this isn't about who is the most hypocrite. My point is that everyone loves democracy when they win, and everything gets mad when they lose. A big percentage of the country and even anti-gun people believe a tyrant sits in office in the United States right now. This isn't about who is the biggest hypocrite here, but the fact that EVERYONE believes that a tyrant can be elected otherwise they wouldn't complain about losing. Of course, it should be logical that people would assume that maybe a popularity contest shouldn't determine who rules over them but people cling to the ideology because they hope they win next time. 3/4 - "own a gun" owning and buying are very different things. You can theoretically own a gun if for example your parents allow it to have it, aka it's under their possession. "The parkland shooter legally bought an assault rifle at 17" - false. He is 19 years old. "the orlando pulse shooter was listed in the fbi list" - the problem is that anyone can be put on those lists. There's a politician in the United States who always has trouble getting in on airplanes because someone put him on a list and it's difficult to be removed. Those lists do not obey due process, you can't remove people's rights without actually going to a court and by following the law proving that person is guilty. "especially if you buy them online" - if you buy guns online they are shipped to a gun store and you have to pass the background check there. Since the 1960's you can't get a gun shipped to you directly. 5 - I said gun homicide not gun deaths. But if you want to talk about suicide not only the US has similar suicide rates to other countries, but gun safety would not prevent suicides because the person using the gun doesn't intent to be safe in the first place. The argument that "other countries teach gun safety so their gun crime/homicide/suicide is lower" doesn't make much sense. "but pushing the police to do its job" - but that has lead to the War on Drugs, which is responsible for the street price of drugs to rise and make gangs more profitable. The police is already too powerful in the US and they've actually made the situation worse by escalating street violence. "Why nobody pro gun talk about gang violence" - we actually talk a lot about it. Without gang violence, the US would be extremely peaceful and proof that gun ownership does not cause crime. Criminals cause crime. "here are more guns than people in this country and at the same time the highest gun violence not only in the developed world but in the entire world" - false. Gun violence is worse in Mexico, Brazil, Honduras, El Salvador, etc. In fact, if you plot gun ownership and gun homicide rates by country, you will see that despite the number of guns the US isn't even at the top. "crime index in the usa is similar to most of developed countries" - compare with other metrics. The US has over 30 thousand gangs which means 9.8 gangs per 100,000 people. All of Europe has 0.674 gangs per 100,000 people. This means that despite crime indexes being the same, Europe mostly has individual criminals doing petty crime while the US has gangs in open warfare (which hit a pretty bloody height in 1994). The nature of crime isn't the same.
1
But they don't ban the manufacturing of such weapons because the government and the elites with their private security (private armies) need such weapons.
1
@EfrainRiveraJunior they need the weapons too. How do you think they control the populace or keep people off their gated communities or private islands? All government is based on force. Be it a government by politics or by oligarchy. The fact that they can profit off the taxes is just a bonus. Without their monopoly on weapons people could just start rolling the guillotines to the square.
1
@EfrainRiveraJunior when was the last time you saw a cop with a double-barrel shotgun defending the parliament? I mean, that argument doesn't even make sense, if you were in the government why wouldn't you want to have the most efficient weapons? But that's not neither here or there, even if for some reason you didn't want the police and security to have high-end weapons you would still need to face the fact that if given sub-par weapons the cops could be overwhelmed by criminals or even a disgruntled populace.
1
@RuffProfesional "assault rifles" were not legal in New Zealand nor are they currently legal in the US so why bring them up?
1
@gauthamsuresh3226 so take away the guns and the situation happens with machetes or molotov cocktails. Have you ever seen Hotel Rwanda?
1
@kyh6767 an AR-15 is in my opinion better. A shotgun will blow holes through walls and the spread of the pellets might cause collateral damage. A rifle is easier to shoot and the 223/5.56 caliber is low recoil while the shotgun is pretty punishing especially to smaller men and women. A rifle can be operated one-handed if you need to open a door or pull a child out of the way, while a shotgun is very difficult to operate one-handed.
1
@JewTube001 he did want this. He specifically stated he wanted the left to come after guns so that the right felt cornered. Seems far fetched but he was planning on his attack having worldwide repercussions and he wanted to fan the flames of the gun control debate to radicalize both sides.
1
@TheRealWinser "You don't have a right to a specific weapon and that is true even in the USA." - actually, you do. California just lost the magazine capacity ban because a judge deemed it unconstitutional. The handgun ban in Chicago was deemed unconstitutional. The problem with those laws is that someone has to be caught and go to court to challenge them but once they get to the Supreme Court they're typically struct down.
1
@minarulkarim743 "you see in a country where everyone has guns, the robber will expect you to have gun" - if the robber expects you to have a gun why would he attack you? Does he have a death wish?
1
@TheRealWinser "SCOTUS says otherwise" - you mean the same SCOTUS that is getting stacked with conservatives?
1
@tophemuffin nice strawman you got there
1
@minarulkarim743 false, only bootlickers wanted it but it was forced. You should go back and watch TV shows and news from those days. It was probably the last time the media was in the side of the people. The media actually questioned the Iraq war and warned us about losing freedoms. Now they tell you if you're against the war in Syria you're a Putin troll. If you don't want censorship you're a Nazi.
1
I sure hope they're designed to kill, if I defend myself I want something that hurts the criminal, not tickle him.
1