General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Titanium Rain
JRE Clips
comments

Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "Joe Rogan on the Canadian Assault Weapons Ban" video.

@tryinsurvive763 because he pointed out how state operatives get to use euphemisms to describe their tools while civilians are demonized for owning them? Americans are twisted because of that?
5
@Laocoon283 the NRA's clout only allowed them to scam millions out of the pockets of gun owners and then waste it. Think about it. The anti gunners cry loudly about the NRA, but then speak of the GOA, FPC and Second Amendment Foundation in hushed tone. If they even speak about them. Why do anti-gunners want you to know that the NRA is dangerous, but don't want to let you know there's alternatives? Almost like they're controlled opposition.
4
@Liam.keenlyside "You have a problem, you call the police." - So you don't need guns because you can call people with guns. Okay. If you're in immediate danger they're not going to arrive in time to save you. "I'm still for police and government agencies having firearms, as the use comes with their jobs" - Stop simping for government agents. "Lower access to firearms, lower homicide rate" - Tell that to Brazil and Mexico.
3
@ericmanget4280 "police who are trained to be careful" - police training is absolute garbage. Someone who shoots as a hobby is a thousand times better trained than the average cop.
3
So you can shoot guns but only when given orders by the state to do so. Seems like an issue that is self-explanatory.
2
I'm glad you use personal insults to signal your opinions are worthless and you're incapable of making an actual argument.
2
@zakichoudhary507 "Some of us are cool with basic regulations, like we have on boats and cars and door frames." lmao
2
@ericmanget4280 "Canada isn't China or Nazi Germany, our military and police aren't going to bend over ass backwards and be controlled by a tyrannical dictator." - You do realize that Nazi Germany was still Germany, right? A normal country full of normal people. At least in China you can argue that the CCP has brainwashed generations of its population, but the Germans weren't brainwashed.
2
@Liam.keenlyside "some crimes are done with illegally obtained guns, but not all" - Then why have a licensing system is licensed gun owners end up committing gun crimes? "On top of that, that less guns means it's harder to get guns" - Not true. Many countries with strict gun laws are flowing with guns. And many countries with very low numbers of guns have disgustingly high gun homicide rates. "it's easier for police forces to target criminals with guns." - Why? "legal gun owners do still commit crimes with their guns." - Again, then what the fuck is the point of the licensing system if it can't even properly vet gun owners? "australias firearm homicides were in a steady decline, but that decline did take a sharp term down and accelerated." LOL NO it was a straight line. https://libertarianben.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/australia.jpg "Then for the UK, do you know why it increased? It was largely do to the fact that the afterward any crime involving something that was believed to be a gun was then automatically grouped into firearm crime," - and still they had to sweep the real numbers under the rug https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/3222063/Gun-crime-60pc-higher-than-official-figures.html How about some evidence of gun crime increasing even after the standards were allegedly changed? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/knife-gun-crime-stats-latest-england-wales-rise-increase-a8177161.html https://news.sky.com/story/gun-crime-rises-in-uk-in-last-year-with-more-than-9-700-cases-reported-11933150 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-47157967 "even in brazil in Mexico, it is not the easiest thing in the world to get a gun, in most places, if you dont know someone and try to buy it off the street you'll just get robbed" - Cartels have no problem getting guns off police armories, and in Brazil people make submachine guns in garages. "Yes killing someone with a gun and a knife is very different, compared to the person that has to pull the trigger and the person that has to personally drive a knife into someone" - I'm sure the victim appreciates the difference. "Firearms are made to kill, have you heard "you can't fight fire with fire"?" - You can. Controlled burns are used to deplete the fuel and prevent a larger fire from continuing. Even explosions can be used to separate the flame from the fuel and temporarily consume the oxygen in the area in situations like oil fires. "All it creates is more death- US homicide rate 5.0. 5x the rate of most countries" - And some countries with strict gun control have 5x the gun homicide. But sure, let's compare the US, which has most of its gun crime concentrated in cities that are more similar to the Third World than developed countries, to countries with different conditions and lower gang activity.
2
Shut the fuck up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzMx3Z5EbQQ
2
I know plenty of Canadian gun owners. They're furious with this too. Canadians didn't ban anything. Trudeau did.
2
@Liam.keenlyside "yes, that is why we have speed limits and road regulations" - but we don't limit cars to never break those regulations. We allow people to use the full potential of their vehicle, and suffer the consequences if they break the law.
2
@darrenfleming7901 "Also, in what world do you need a fucking AR-15 to kill a coyote??? Do you regularly kill hundreds of wolves on your farm??? There's a reason hunting rifles weren't banned in Canada" - What is the difference between an AR-15 and a "hunting" rifle?
2
@lukejax1407 "you don't need more than a handgun to defend yourself" - What authority do you have to make this claim? What do you know about guns and self-defense? Are you a certified instructor?
2
@Liam.keenlyside "having speed limits isn't necessary allowing." - You're allowed to own the items that break such limits. "If you say that, then it's the same for any other law/crime." - Not really. Real crimes create victims and need to be punished for the damage they create. Owning a gun isn't a real crime. It hurts nobody unless you actually use the gun to hurt someone.
2
Automatic rifles were already prohibited in Canada.
2
"this will help reduce deadly weapons in Canada" - by banning weapons that rarely get used in crimes? "But the data shows it will work and has worked in other countries" - No, it doesn't. Plenty of countries with strict gun laws have disgustingly high gun homicide rates.
2
"even to protect yourself you do not need an assault rifle" - What are your credentials in the firearms instruction world or self-defense?
2
Shut the fuck up, Boomer. The newer generations aren't Fudds. Take a look at this Canadian gun owner and tell me he only wants hunting guns: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYZyJn1MbwCfecw436w5Oqg
2
"society decided that fifty thousand traffic accident deaths a year is collateral damage" - So if they're gonna live with those deaths for the privilege of owning cars they should not demand of others to give up their rights. "difference between guns and sports cars is that the sports cars weren’t actually created to kill people" - And yet they kill just as many. Shouldn't that be indicative of a problem?
1
"Do you have something in your gun safe that can stop your entire house being incinerated by a laser-guided two thousand pound bomb?" - Yes. The dozens of innocent people living in the same apartment building. I'll gladly eat a JDAM if the deaths of dozens of innocents convinces dozens of families to join the fight. Did you learn anything from Afghanistan? You push too hard, people fight back. They become the terrorists you wanted to wipe out.
1
@Engel990 Drinking and driving is a threat to people. Owning a gun isn't.
1
"I’ve spoken to plenty of hunters, my post isn’t open for debate." - aka you're unwilling to admit defeat
1
@Verbally.autistic It's not invalid. All country leaders that have armed security in places where they don't allow people to protect themselves are hypocrites.
1
@Laocoon283 If my grandmother had wheels could I call her a scooter? Just look at the facts, most of the NRA's budget is spent on MORE fundraising so by definition they're wasting your money in pursuit of more money. Wayne LaPierre spends thousands on fine clothing and expensive vacations on the NRA's dime, using the gun rights organization as his personal checkbook to pay for his lavish lifestyle. They changed the way that voting board members worked so that the people eligible to join the board have to be cleared by the nominations committee, which is controlled by LaPierre. It's mathematically impossible to get enough names on the ballot to achieve a majority in the NRA board.
1
@paulcrottie4394 An intelligent person wouldn't pass laws because of some dude who took a pistol from a mountie, dressed like a cop and used arson to kill like half of his victims.
1
@paulcrottie4394 What alternate plan? Are you going to demand changes to solve EVERY. SINGLE. PROBLEM that is going to happen? Life isn't perfect. You can't prevent anything. Stop demanding solutions to solve things that are statistical anomalies.
1
@paulcrottie4394 Thanks Hulk Hogan, very cool.
1
@themcrib7920 You're misinterpreting what the piece of paper is. They didn't say you have those rights. What they said was that you ALWAYS had those rights, and they were putting it on paper so they would be recognized by the government. That's why it's a "God given" right. It's a natural right.
1
@themcrib7920 No, it doesn't.
1
@themcrib7920 Do you even understand what a natural right is? Natural rights extend to man-made creations. "You have no right to own a car, or a house. You have the privilege." - Ahahah. Shut the fuck up. "I'm not inherently anti-gun, I just don't understand the argument against regulations/strict gun laws because it's a "right"." - I don't even care if you're anti-gun, you straight up said people don't have the right to own property. We can go down the rabbit hole about most regulations not making any sense (from a crime perspective) and strict gun laws not doing shit considering that many countries with strict gun laws are fucking war zones, but you're sitting here telling me that I can work for a paycheck, which is time of my life I will never get back, use that paycheck to buy a house, and then you come along and say I have no right to own a house? The fuck you're gonna do, evict me? Steal literal years off my limited time on Earth?
1
insert Big Shaq rap gun sounds
1
@Liam.keenlyside "less guns, less crimes done with guns " - so a crime is committed with illegally obtained guns, so we're going to reduce them by banning the legal guns from legal gun owners who almost never commit crimes?
1
"Most Canadian gun owners are either hunters or sport shooters, none of the banned guns interfere with those." - How delusional do you have to be? Look up this Canadian gun channel called Arm & Gun. Look at his collection. Plenty of Canadian gun owners own rifles affected by the law.
1
@ericmanget4280 "The less murder tools in circulation the better as far as I'm concerned." - Then start off by chopping your hands, we can't have any strangling deaths around here.
1
@Liam.keenlyside "look at the UK and australia. Both introduced heavy firearm regulations and both saw a drop in homicides." - Actually the UK homicide rose for a few years, and Australia was on a decline BEFORE the new gun laws. "Not every criminal has access to market of illegal firearms, so less access to firearms, the less people use them" - Tell that to Mexico or Brazil. "killing someone with a gun and killing with a knife are two very different things" - Tell that to the victims. "Next firearms are made to kill" - I would hope so. Last thing I would want would be for the gun to actually tickle my assailant instead of causing enough harm (or the mere threat of harm) to stop the threat.
1
@ericmanget4280 I don't know if you understand history but plenty of countries lost wars. There used to be a lot of wars in Europe. A holocaust didn't happen in every single one as a consequence. I don't understand your point. So because the economy is in shambles, people will comply with mass murder? If you haven't noticed, the world economy is in shambles because of the lockdown. My point is simply that between losing their job or complying with the state, most people will say "meh" and follow orders because it doesn't concern them. You really think everyone who is financially dependent on the state is gonna refuse orders?
1
Exactly.
1
They're not assault rifles. And if you wanted to go deeper on the subject, there's zero difference between an assault rifle and a normal rifle if we ignore the select fire capability. It's a tube that contains an explosion and shoots hot metal out one side. In a normal rifle you have to release the trigger, in an assault rifle if you flick a switch you can just press the trigger once and shoot multiple times. So in the end, they're still exploiting your reaction to the term "assault rifle" to get rid of weapons.
1
@kellsAC1 Canada already had a 5 round limit on magazines so that is a moot point. Also, there's non "assault" weapons which have the exact same capabilities as assault weapons: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHSwsCoXgkg The definition of an assault weapon is based on "cosmetic"/"external" features rather then internal mechanism.
1
Based.
1
"how many of these people that are selling illegal firearms are people who just went to place with relaxed gun laws and purchased them legally there, then sold them illegally elsewhere?" - That's only a concern in the US because they don't have registries. The Canadians don't register the unregulated long guns, but the restricted classes and handguns are registered and if you sell them to other people you'll be committing a crime. "if gun manufacturers and store merchants were to put a limit on how many could be purchased at a given time" - Ignoring the issue I brought up earlier, illicit arms dealers would just bribe people to buy guns for them to bypass the limit.
1
Yes. Honduras and El Salvador have some of the world's highest gun homicide rates despite pathetically low gun ownership rates. Mexico and Brazil have pretty high gun murder rates, and they have strict gun control. If you plot gun ownership with gun homicide by country, you actually get a negative slope. Does this mean that more guns less crime? No. But it means that less guns doesn't equal less crime.
1
Is it? Because after Port Arthur they had Monash, and had to revise their handgun laws. Seems like it didn't work the first time. Through the 2000s and 2010s there were half a dozen gun massacres. There was one just last year. But there were also several mass killings by arson. Congratulations, people burn to death instead of being poked full of holes.
1
@WingsaberE3 "At least Australia and Canada are trying" - "At least doing something" is the worst argument ever. Things are done because they're right. Not because they're "something". That's exactly what leads to knee-jerk reactions.
1
@WingsaberE3 But that's the point. How do you know if it leads to less dead kids if it's a thoughtless, immediate reaction? If it doesn't make a change, would you roll back the changes?
1
@WingsaberE3 "New Zealand and Australia both had drops in gun-related deaths and mass shootings since gun regulation." - New Zealand just passed their regulations recently so you can't use a singular statistically irrelevant event to create a pattern, and Australia was already dropping in gun homicides since the late 60s without the rate of drop increasing after Port Arthur. Also, mass shootings in Australia since Port Arthur are like 2/3rds of what they had from 1980 to 1996 so... In addition New Zealand also had a few mass shootings in the 1980s and 1990s but they stopped without them passing anti-gun legislation. "Yeah maybe there have been a few more arson related murders but I really don't see arson being as big a threat as an assault rifle." - You do realize that the Canadian murderer killed like half his victims with arson, right? Sorry but... if mass murderers simply switched to fire and kept killing, you're not saving any lives. If you don't think it's a threat, then you're simply biased against guns. I can accept that. I can accept that people hate guns and want them banned. I'd appreciate the honesty. But when they try to hide behind the excuse that they're trying to save lives, and then openly admit they don't care about alternative methods of mass killing, that's hypocritical.
1
@WingsaberE3 "weapons meant to kill a lot of people quickly" - That's like, most weapon designs since the 1840s. "We already have gun control in the form of children and other people can't buy them, why not just a little more?" - I can't believe I have to explain this, but gun laws have been increasing ever since they started. I can't write a comment addressing all of them but for example the 1968 gun control act targeted "Saturday Night Specials" (which originates from a racist term) to make cheap guns illegal, in 1989 there was a ban on the import on foreign rifles, and the way you got hold of a foreign rifle was to destroy the receiver before importing, bring them over as a scrapped gun, rebuild it either by making a new receiver or re-welding the torch cut pieces in a jig, then assembling it. But to complicate it, there's 922r compliance. This means that a firearm built off an imported parts kit could not have more than 10 foreign parts. So if a rifle has 11 parts, you'd need to replace one by a US made part (which is easy because you already built the receiver in the US). But what if a rifle has 19 parts? You'd have to toss out 9 foreign parts and find a manufacturer that is making those replacement parts so you could have a legal rifle. Now, in 2005 it was signed into law that the barrels in those parts kits had to come to the US destroyed. So now you'd have to get a US barrel maker to manufacture you a clone barrel for a foreign rifle and you wouldn't be able to use the original. Are you bored yet? This is only a sliver of all the gun laws that exist. And if you're building a rifle, you have to take care of your barrel measurement and decide if you're going to have a normal stock, a folding stock, or a pistol brace. Because the EXACT SAME WEAPON can be a rifle, a SBR, an AOW, a "pistol" or a "firearm" depending how you configure it. The SBR and AOW require a 200 dollar and registry with the ATF or else they'll come kick your doors in and shoot your dog. Oh, and if you assemble it as a pistol you can later decide to make it a rifle, but if you go from a rifle to a pistol you've just committed a crime. Not bored yet? Look up a flowchart for the legality of a rifle in California. I can't even describe it through text. You need a freaking PhD to figure out some gun laws. We already have all these unreasonable, nonsensical and useless gun laws. And you ask, why not a little more? Do you want me to laugh in your face? You think it's not going to affect us if we get MORE of this bullshit? "We already have gun control in the form of children and other people can't buy them, why not just a little more?" - It NEVER ends. "Hell I have to renew my scuba license and lifeguard license every couple years" - And if you want to cut other people's hair for money you need a 300 hour course but if you want to cut your own at home there's clippers for sale at Walmart for like $24.99. The equivalent to a lifeguard in the gun world would be like being an armored car company's armed security. Pretty sure that requires licensing too. "Do you really need heavy machine guns and sniper rifles to defend your house?" - Machine guns are banned. It's almost like you people insist on being wrong on the facts. And then you complain that we're being pedantic by trying to enforce terminology. I couldn't give a rat's ass about terminology, my issue is people taking advantage of terminology to pretend that machine guns are legal. Also, what the fuck is a sniper rifle? Snipers in history have used everything from the first rifled muzzleloaders, hunting guns, heavy machine guns (Carlos Hatchcock used a scope-equipped M2 Browning machine gun to make a kill at 2500 yards) and more modern rifles like the Accuracy International series (famous for the AWP/AWM from Counter Strike) started off with a British guy building custom rifles as a hobby in his literal shed (and got a government contract before he even had a factory because his rifles were so fucking good). You want to ban a gun because it's built too well? "And if you're going to fight the government that's dumb unless you have the couple million laying around for a SAM launcher." - Those are inflated Military Industrial Complex prices. I can make you a SAM for a few thousand.
1
@WingsaberE3 What's messed up is that for 20 years psychologists have warned that media focus on mass shootings and sensationalist pieces push more people over the edge, and around 2016 a study found "contagion" effects in mass shootings confirming that the infamy gained by mass shooters inspires people under similar conditions to take action, but yet only about a year,year and a half ago did some media outlets announce that they were going to stop mentioning the shooter's name. What's messed up is that statistically, one is more likely to get killed by lighting strike in America than in a school shooting. I mean, after the Madrid bombings, which happened in fucking Spain of all places so had nothing to do with us, police went to schools and gave us a lecture on identifying different types of IEDs. I liked it, I'd assume most kids didn't give a shit, but I found value in gaining a skill that could save lives. But we didn't have repeated drills. Should people be taught how to act in case of a mass shooter? Sure. But when you think that it's messed up that children are being subjected to repeated drills, remember that someone knows that school shootings are statistically insignificant and yet they're knowingly traumatizing kids for no reason. "instead of a discussion on how to resolve it." - We had that discussion multiple times but since the answer isn't guns nothing gets done. So not only are organizations perfectly willing to mentally fuck up kids by reinforcing their belief that they're gonna die out of a cause of death that is less common than lighting strike, they'll allow that statistically low number of deaths occur and work to cause MORE through media exposure until they get the gun legislation they want. I'll accept the criticism on the "thoughts and prayers" under the condition that you think about the people who say "we don't want thoughts and prayers" but will literally refuse alternative solutions and actively cause more mass shootings through non-stop media coverage.
1
Gun crime rose in the UK after the bans. "The idea that you need a gun for safety is only true because so many people have guns in these countries." - False. If people come at me with knives, tire irons or baseball bats, I want a gun. Even a roided up asshole is a life-threatening weapon against a person of average stature like me. Multiple attackers are easily able to severely injure a victim. ~With no guns, it's extremely easy for criminals to make the streets unsafe.
1
@StephenBenHinds "do you have a source?" - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/1440764.stm https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/3222063/Gun-crime-60pc-higher-than-official-figures.html "a criminal was subdued by civilians without the use of guns"- and in America a mass shooter with an AR was also subdued by a civilian without guns. "the fact that deadly force was only available to trained professional other than street justice by any random passer by makes me feel more secure" - Not me. "Trained" professionals are behind some of the largest massacres in mankind's history. It's not reasonable or even sane to defend the state's monopoly on the use of weapons considering how much carnage governments have caused. "the UK only having 97 deaths from terror attacks while the US has 408 since 2005" - Did you adjust the numbers to population? "i disagree with the line "With no guns, it's extremely easy for criminals to make the streets unsafe."" - Then sorry to break it to you, but you are a fool. Dangerous people can control the streets without guns. "even the worse streets i have walked down i have yet to be terrified of being shot" - You being "terrified" of being shot or not is purely based on media and perception ingrained by anecdotal evidence. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/27/police-struggle-to-stop-flood-of-firearms-into-uk The police themselves admits they can't stop the flow of guns. The criminals have guns. But you don't hear of shootings so you don't worry about being shot. You hear of a lot of shootings in the US, so you would fear getting shot there. It's all about perspective. But notice - your standard of safety is being shot. Not being shot doesn't mean you are safe. That's insane. You can be unsafe even without weapons around. Being beaten into a bloody pulp isn't safety. "finally the lack of school shootings" - In the US you're more likely to die from lighting strike than in a school shooting.
1
@americase7en "I think it should be in the constitution for every American to visit Europe and check how it is possible to live in a territory where you are not always thinking that at any given time someone is carrying a gun!" - I'm European and I do check suspicious people for guns. There's a ton of guns in Europe, and criminals don't care about gun laws.
1
I'm not from the US. I am against nonsensical gun laws.
1
@Daragh Kiernan But if you're given a position of authority on a certain subject it stands to reason that you should have some kind of knowledge.
1
@TheMisleduser "Who gives a fuck what nomenclature they use to describe them?" - Because the nomenclature is being used as an emotional argument to sway people's opinions. "Would it be different if they said "we need to ban semi automatic carbine length rifles with detectable magazines."" - Kinda. People would actually have to put their brain in gear rather than assuming that the government is protecting them from the end of the movie Commando.
1
@jman75234 "america is right up amongst the top when it comes to fire arm deaths per capita" - It's not even in the top 10.
1
@Daragh Kiernan "They only need to know their capabilities, fire rate, magazine size etc." - Okay. Did they ever mention fire rate numbers or where the limit is? Or do they just call them assault weapons to make people believe they're evil? Also, rifle magazine sizes are restricted to 5 rounds in Canada. I seriously doubt there's an issue with fire rates considering that a reload is necessary every 5 rounds. "Names of the guns aren't even particularly important." - But they literally banned weapons... by name. They went over gun catalogs and copy pasted every single name they found. They even banned an airsoft replica, coffee and a website because of how rushed they were in trying to copy names... "Call it what you want 'assault weapon' or whatever. If it can theoretically cause the same amount of mass murder as the weapons involved in all these mass shootings then they should be banned." - A pump action shotgun can theoretically cause the same amount of mass murder. In the Virginia Tech shooting the shooter used two handguns. Killed 34 if I remember correctly. So basically, ban every single type of gun? "Assault weapon' is a catch all term for these in the minds of those who oppose them." - But like I pointed out, if your "catch all" catches everything, there's no point. just say you want to ban all guns. I'll actually respect that. I'd rather talk to honest people who hate my guts and want the cops to kick my door down and shoot me in the head because I like guns, than talk to manipulative liars.
1
@luisa9628 "No it describes a semi automatic rifle capable of chambering 10+ rounds and firing at 1.5k pounds of force." - Buddy I can describe a "Nincompoop" as any car weighing over a ton capable of reaching 100mph but I just made up that term on my head. "A 308 bolt action will do that too but you can't get 10 shots off in less than 5 seconds with one of those." - Is that a challenge?
1
@coroso136 Gewehr means rifle. Waffen means weapon. They called it Sturmgewehr not Sturmwaffen.
1
That argument can be used for anything. Today you're a responsible driver, tomorrow you'll be a drunk driver. Today you use propane tanks for a BBQ responsibly, tomorrow you'll be burning down the neighborhood.
1
"We do not need guns in normal society anywhere" - And yet the cops and military have them. If society doesn't need guns, shouldn't they give them up? What are they afraid of?
1
Every foreigner chimes in about American gun laws, now you people get mad over it?
1