Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "Vsauce2" channel.

  1. Don't make me think about the overdue super-eruption. There's a fault line in the ocean near where I live, the quake and tsunami would wreck the city, and the next quake is overdue. Fuck you Nat Geo and your alarmism, making me prep my bug-out-bag!
    1
  2. Totally legit. But we can't do shit about solar cycles or the natural orbital cycles of Earth. We can't pick and choose what environment we want to live in, millions of species went extinct before because of such changes. Protect the environment? Sure, I like breathing clean air. Reducing dependency of fossil fuel? Great! Pretending that we can solve global warming? We can't until we become a very advanced civilization.
    1
  3. How do they know someone is a criminal before they have seen the ink? Are you going to let the police strip search you for the paint? Innocent until proven guilty. >so who cares about rights. Then wouldn't you agree that using rubber buckshot/slugs and CS gas would be more effective?
    1
  4. Electrodes have short ranges. However, there is a specially modified shotgun that fires the whole taser assembly.
    1
  5. If there is probable cause you have the authorization to investigate a person. The whole purpose of marking a person is not needing to investigate that person. i.e. assuming people are criminals, which is totally unfair. What happened to the "innocent until proven guilty"?
    1
  6. How would they know without strip searching me? That requires probable cause. If there is enough evidence to consider me a person of interest, the DNA gun is redundant as it proves nothing new - they already know who I am. Plus, if being shot is enough probable cause, how long until people will carry out their revenges by incriminating others with paint? Or simply missing, the damn thing isn't a ballistics prodigy.
    1
  7. If she's like Rayveness I'd accept the burden of investigating that evidence.
    1
  8. If it's rain proof, I seriously doubt it would go trough. If you're wearing enough layers, even if not waterproof I doubt this thing has enough oomph to go all the way, no matter how fluid it is.
    1
  9. I don't get how this can get thumbs down. The fact is that for that gun to be effective, the police has to have the right to tell people to strip off their clothes so that the UV light can reach the paint mark. How would you like to be treated like a criminal and have the police taking your fingerprints and doing DNA tests on you without probable cause?
    1
  10. I saw an instrument that only an Orwellian-style police would use. How will it be used lawfully? It requires an unlawful search of a person's skin before that person is even a suspect. It also gives way to false positives and corrupt officers incriminating people.
    1
  11. Hello? They have to strip search you to find the tags in the skin. Or are you going to use the same sweater for a couple of weeks after the riots?
    1
  12. If it's like getting shot by paintball, it hurts but it doesn't stop anyone. Otherwise paintballs would be used for self-defense. Actual rubber slugs and rubber buckshot have more capability of stopping someone than merely annoying them.
    1
  13. Tell that to the protesters in Iran, after the rigged elections. If anyone ever deserves to be stripped of rights are convicted felons who committed horrific crimes. What you are saying is that anyone that is suspected of taking part in a riot can be searched without a warrant, and convicted based on an unlawful search. That's not right, even for a criminal. Anyway, this system denies the rights to people who might not have been at the riot. Or does the police know exactly who to search?
    1
  14. Argh, the officer faking the recoil with the paintballs. Grr.
    1
  15. >a DNA gun will just prove you were at the place and identify you as a Person Of Interest. This is grounds for an arrest How will they prove you were at a certain place before they strip searched you? It's a Catch 22, to be able to see the paint there has to be probable cause already. Without grounds for an arrest, no paint will be seen.
    1
  16. >Probable cause for stopping a car, etc And I disagree with that, but outside the car is a different story. I mean, even if they stop the car they can't strip search you without reason. >it is for tagging whoever looks like the instigator of a fight, etc etc What you just said is called "actual police work". If more police did it, there would be no need for the paint. Even after what you just said, the paint would only be seen after arrest.
    1
  17. >If you did get hit by the DNA gun you would most likely refuse to be scanned. That, in most cases, should give the police a reason to bring the suspect in for questioning. No, that is not how it works. The police does not have the right to assume my guilt. If I refuse to be searched it's because I have rights, not because I am guilty. If the police can do that in the UK and I'm completely underestimating your police state, then: /watch?v=PQKSQBJ58rY .. State."
    1
  18. >it is used to narrow down the number of people they have to bring in So let go people who aren't tagged. Good riddance. >got mixed in with a crowd/ mob and the police were to start chasing Exactly - a mob. The gun depends on the accuracy of the officer, crosswinds and the thickness of the rioter's jacket. It can easily tag a rioter they weren't intending to chase, or even land in a totally different street.
    1
  19. The "if you have nothing to hide..." argument is severely flawed. How do you know if what you do will be ordinary and legal in the future? If today's surveillance was available decades ago, homosexuality would have been severely punished. You can deny your right to privacy all you want. Join those Big Brother reality shows or something. But don't deny others their basic rights.
    1
  20. Why should he train realigning the sights if the slide does not kick back and there is no recoil? And why would he "fish" the sights? It's much easier to reacquire the sights by pushing the barrel forward than "dipping" the front sight (this causes inaccuracies). Just saying, but I'd at least give him credit for faking the recoil to the masses at home. If he's training in a gun that doesn't need sight re-alignment and on top of that doing it all wrong, then I can't really defend him.
    1
  21. Progress? You mean an Orwellian police state! How is the police going to check if you have your skin tagged? Are they going to ask everyone to take off their clothes to shine UV light on them? That's my issue. But I'm glad you mentioned it - police officers can use this to incriminate people. Even if they miss they are incriminating people accidentally. No developed country should allow this kind of evidence in court! If you want to say goodbye to your rights, do so alone.
    1
  22. False. There are shotguns that fire the whole taser assembly. You can use it as many times as you want if you keep loading the tube with more shells.
    1
  23. Identification after the fact. Okay. How is the police even going to see the tags? What if a rioter is hit in the crotch? Do you want the police to knock on your door and ask everyone in your family to let their genitalia get seen under UV light? >Or would you rather a bullet hole? False dilemma or even Strawman argument, that is a logical fallacy.
    1
  24. Trouble is, the tagging gun was made for the police in Britain. I'd rather the people were using lead for legitimate self-defense (like the Korean store owners in the LA riots) than giving the police the right to execute rioters. However, it would be hilarious if the police had rubber slugs and rubber buckshot. Why tag people with paint if you can just give everyone bruises?
    1
  25. Same. I have heard that the point is relying on future convictions. I don't buy that, that implies that they will get arrested in the following couple of weeks, which is a long shot, and it assumes that all rioters are hardened criminals, which they aren't.
    1
  26. No, it's not fascinating. It's only purpose is governmental oppression, infringement of rights and the foundations for another level of police state. I mean, it's just a paintball gun, so it's not even fascinating.
    1
  27. >it doesn't require them to take their clothes off, it penetrates past the clothes Read what you just said. It goes past the clothes to reach the skin. Skin you can't remove. Clothes can be removed. The whole point of this gun is to TAG THE SKIN, not the clothes. How does the police get the right to take a look at my skin without probable cause?
    1
  28. No, I'm in Europe, Portugal. I was talking about TV documentaries that were part of the Geology program in highschool, they kept saying "it's overdue, it's going to happen, hurr durr". Still better than History Channel and aliens, though.
    1
  29. The police does have the right to stop drivers. Last time I checked, there is no right to stop and search without probable cause. It's a crime to drive drunk, it's not a crime to for some reason having this special paint on you (miss/incrimination). That's like assuming I robbed a bank/cracked into an ATM if I am found with marked bills. >take off your shirt Yeah, what if a young female was hit in the bum? Is your teenage daughter taking off her clothes or will you call a lawyer?
    1
  30. The only way for the gun to be reliable and effective is to search people's skin up to two weeks after the riot. Tell me, how doesn't it infringe on the rights of innocent people, and guilty people who should be considered innocent before proven guilty?
    1
  31. Same could be said about the designer of that tagging gun. We have over a hundred years of development of reliable magazine fed firearms that don't require them to be shaken. If the design forces the officer to take the sights off his target, then it's a failure in my book. The tagging gun should be self-loading, there are paintball pistols that don't have this kind of problem.
    1
  32. How are they arrested? The video said they would be arrested when the DNA tag is revealed. If they could identify the rioters, the DNA tag is not necessary. Since they can't, the only way to take a look at the paint is search INNOCENT people until they find someone with the paint. These paintballs have a good effective range. A miss or a negligent discharge is enough to mark innocent people. Also, you're ignoring that officers can incriminate people with this paint.
    1
  33. What do you mean, when I'm shot or after I am shot?
    1