Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "David Pakman Show" channel.

+Abnormal Wrench One of the largest growing demographics for the gun market is women. I love how anti-fun people always mention the penis. It's like they're obsessed with the thing. They look at guns, and can't help but think about the cock.
5
+Ben C. "armor piercing" any rifle round will go through vests made for pistol rounds. It's a non issue but it sounds "reasonable".
3
***** >"This is called projection" Did you throw all your self-awareness out the window? Because for a group of people to constantly keep referencing small dicks, there must be some kind of projection involved. Also, you it would be some sort of overcompensation. Not projection. You can't even use the proper term, ffs. >"Men who are physically strong" This is some archaic, fucked up kind of thinking. We don't need outdated concepts of masculinity to be perpetuated, specially when we are the biggest victims of suicide, we get swindled in court constantly and rarely get to keep our children, etc. We're not shaved apes, I do not need to abide by any laws of the fucking jungle and I do not need violence or physical prowess to solve my problems. I train combat sports almost religiously so rest assured that I am not "weak", but I don't need to prove my strength to any of you. People who think it's okay to use your "strength" on the streets is exactly why there's confrontations like road rage, etc.
3
@fredthenomad4078 again, the problem isn't me and you. It's the people we want to reach. The point of being on youtube is being seen by the whole world. If content creators become insulated, might as well move to their own website or a smaller platform. They'll be making content for people who already agree with them, changing nobody's minds and creating "bubbles".
3
Look at the Luty SMGs made by Australian gangs. Or the near perfect MAC-10 copies that Australian jeweler was selling to bikers. Corporations? The tech to make guns is accessible to anyone.
2
***** A single person who just happened to use the same argument as hundreds of thousands of anti-fun people. Hivemind much? >"So why are you constantly worried about being physically overwhelmed" So why are you constantly projecting, erecting strawmen and asking trick questions? I have no quarrel with you, except for the part where I'm being gratuitously insulted. You on the other hand, will take any chance you get to deliver a low blow. How the fuck am I the insecure one in this conversation? >"you spends hours and hours training for when it happens" >"that sure sounds like a lot of constant fear" This just in: me and all my friends at the local gym are paranoid delusional for training martial arts for hours every week. I guess we should turn every self-defense/krav maga academy into asylums, these people are lunatics for wasting time. >"It definitely isn't "manly" under any definition I've heard about." And yet you enforce a severely outdated meaning of "manly" - involving dick size, physical prowess, maybe height, etc, which is commonly dubbed as "toxic masculinity".
2
***** >"Hey, whatever reason you're so terrified at the idea of being man-handled" Nice strawman. >"you can't deny you are clearly more obsessed with it than the rest of us who aren't constantly training for that event" The rest of you? You know how many fucking people do Judo, Krav Maga, Jeet Kune Do, fucking Tae Kwon Do, Karate, even Brazilian Jiu Jitsu? BJJ is as popular as Karate was in the 80's. You know how many highschool/college wrestlers there are? I don't even do it for self-defense purposes, I've transcended that phase altogether. I wanted a hobby and being fit has the added benefit of looking good naked. Now I actually want to compete because I'm decent at fighting. Now, not doing it for defensive purposes doesn't mean I can't use my skills that way, but I am digressing. Look at how popular gyms are these days. Fucking push up bras? We got push up jeans now. We got sneakers that claim to make your ass better by targeting that muscle group. Men get middle age crisis and buy cars. Women wear heels, do plastic surgery, wear makeup. We're all a bunch of fakers pretending to be someone better than we are, getting offended at everything so that people notice how "tolerant", portraying a life we don't have on facebook and we're the ones obsessed? We're the ones compensating? Look at yourself in the mirror. Then look at everyone else. Do that before bringing the magnifying glass to gun owners. Fucking hell. After getting involved in the gun rights discussion, I met a ton of gay and bi men, transgender people, women who just don't have a chance at fending off some 200lb >6' brute (despite what Hollywood fight scenes would have you believe), ethnic minorities. There's even the Pink Pistols, "armed gays don't get bashed", the whole nine yards. I met people who have been tossed around all their lives, and to you they're just compensating. Get real.
2
***** >"obsessing with shooting people" Fucking clockwork. Another strawman. You do know that at this point you've basically forfeited any discussion and you're just here to throw insults, right? The gun rights side won this discussion by excessive fouls on your part. >"with people going to the gym" Everyone is compensating for something, and you're focusing on the people you don't like. It's childish behaviour, but whatever. One thing I found is that people who are actually strong and people who own guns are among the type of people who no longer need to prove their strength. They don't need to overcompensate for anything because they know they can't be beat easily. Hell, it's people like you, those who subscribe to archaic views of masculinity, that typically hate these strong people because they threaten their views. A bully can't pick fights in the streets when someone smaller can fight back. You want to enforce the "might makes right" so you can clinch to some form control in your life, so you accuse people who break the chain of overcompensating.
2
It's because the algorithm decided that's the way to keep you watching. The problem is all the folks who don't have the algorithm tuned to focus on those channels, it degrades viewership and stiffles new channels.
2
@rdu239 "liberalism is fascism" I mean we can beat off to hating liberalism all you want, but calling it fascism is just nonsense.
2
+Drake Koefoed the rates would absolutely go up because healthcare providers would be able to jack the government more than they already do to insurance companies. Providers overcharge for everything because they know insurance companies can cover the bill. Imagine their next client has access to the pockets of every single American alive. Unless your argument is a defense of government hospitals, government doctors and nurses, and government drug manufacturers - which is a valid argument - cutting out the middleman won't absolutely do anything in this case because the government has no leverage. Ultimately it falls flat because insurance companies, big pharma and hospital board members control the government and they would never allow the government to throw a wrench in their plans.
1
"It's a result of economies of scale, advances in farming technology, and better delivery" So farms advancing to seek profit and delivery companies seeking profits improving has nothing to do with capitalism. Aight. "Certainly income disparity is at a 50 year high" Disparity means the difference is greater, not that people are poorer. "and today's poverty is way different to say 1930's depression era poverty." You're right, poverty was much worse the more you go back in time. We advanced even in that aspect, and according to you none of that can be attributed to capitalism, even though you pointed out advancements that clearly nobody would have bothered with if they weren't going to make a buck with them.
1
+Shangori "trained professionals" how about that time the NYPD shot a bunch of people and missed the perp? Or when hunting down Dorner cops fired a ton of rounds into a vehicle that didn't match the description. The average cop is a greater threat to the public than the average gun owner.
1
Shangori No, it's not a blind spot. Policemen are not professional gunslingers. They're professional government enforcement thugs. That's what they do for a living, not shoot guns. Your whole argument hangs on your definition of a police officer as a professional, but their profession is not shoot guns. Obviously, someone who is a gun person will be thousands of times more accurate than a cop who shoots 50 rounds a year for basic qualification. I can't be arsed to check the statistics that prove that private citizens are more accurate than cops, but compare the number of defensive gun usages per year (55-80 thousand is the lowest estimate by Hemenway, an anti-gun researcher) and the homicides committed (outside the home) by people with concealed carry permits. It's basic logic. If you're a cop and you fuck up, your peers will cover your ass, you get paid leave, union will provide lawyers, etc. If you're a private citizen and you fuck up, get ready to possibly lose hundreds of thousands of dollars in court and potentially spend time in jail. People have a vested interest is not fucking up.
1
Shangori Yeah, nice argument, complete with evidence, etc. Cops are out there every day and getting involved (sometimes where they shouldn't, because they're not qualified to handle the situation), while normal people just want to get home to their families. It's extremely rare for people to seek danger or participate in vigilantism, despite what the media would like you to believe. http://crimeresearch.org/2015/02/cprc-in-fox-news-police-are-extremely-law-abiding-but-concealed-handgun-permit-holders-are-even-more-so/ http://gunwatch.blogspot.pt/2013/10/concealed-carry-permit-holders-are-one.html https://slowfacts.wordpress.com/2013/06/03/civilians-are-safer-than-police/ Some articles that have complied the information. Concealed carry permit holders are more law abiding than police, safer than police. You are the one with the blindspot.
1
Shangori >"Wait, if you come with an argument without evidence" Because you refused to read it. Come on, I did not give you a conclusion from a study that never happened, I gave you a verifiable claim by the person who found it. Do I need to teach you how to use google? >"And it's great you finally show some evidence for your claims (blogs??)" Which point to their sources. Don't grill me when you used wikipedia - they point to primary sources too. Let's not play dumb here, secondary sources are fine. >"nation-wide numbers against state-wide (florida) numbers. That doesn't give a complete picture" Because the data on CCW is state level, not federal. Either way, they're presented in rates so they are comparable. Florida is a shit hole, by the way. >"I might as well compare nation-wide numbers against the numbers of the most thug-ridden city in america and then claim police are better than people with concealed handguns" Because gang members definitely get concealed carry permits. Nothing like leaving a paper trail about your activities on a freaking government office. >"They are, however, the ones who get shot more, and use guns to kill more." One, no source on the getting shot more; two, the states that have statistics on concealed carry permit holders clearly show they are not more likely to commit murder. If you mean they are more likely to use a gun in case they kill, I'll believe you - someone with a gun at home is also more likely to use it if that person ends up killing someone. But if people with concealed carry permits are less likely to kill, then what seems to be the problem? >"the differences between the united states and other western countries that severely restrict guns" You mean countries with no Mexican border, no War on Drugs and no industrial prison complex? Introduce those three factors into any country and you'll have murder rates skyrocket. You're also speaking of countries which are historically safe and have been before gun control was introduced. Point being: don't compare the US to "western" countries. Compare the US, which has a lot of shit holes, with countries that also have a lot of shit holes. Name a shit hole in Canada. Switzerland. Sweden. There aren't any. Even countries like France, Italy, Eastern Europe, etc do not have the sheer number of metropolitan cities that the US has. >"Even your own crimesearch shows the problem of your country:" Did I ever tell you I'm American? Then don't assume I am American. >"Basically, you're one of the worst of every developed nation in the world." Exactly. The United States is a shit hole. Or at least a collection of very large ones, so the US is more comparable to Mexico, etc. where gun violence is really high independently of gun control. And just so you won't miss it - I am no American. Never told you I was so I have no clue why you assuming I am. >"A great source for you to look through" I use gunpolicy.org all the time. You know why? Because it lists decently accurate gun ownership rates in Europe and proves that we are heavily armed yet don't kill each other all the time. There's nothing like someone claiming their country banned all guns and me telling them their country actually has millions of legal firearms in civilian hands. >"Compare it to some countries that have strict gun laws" Compare it to some countries that have strict gun laws but are underdeveloped. You cherry picked heavily civilized countries with strong economic safety nets, low poverty rates and more lenient policies on drugs. >"have restrictive gun-laws" In Switzerland there are classes of firearms that can be obtained without a license. Until recently private sales were completely unregulated and legal, now people have a time limit to send the bill of sale to the constabulary's gun registry. And of course, militia members get fully automatic assault rifles to keep, which they can use to shoot government-subsidized ammunition. >"American gun laws do not work. End of story. " Agree. American gun laws do nothing to remove guns from criminals, they're "make belief".
1
***** Have fun not being able to bully people on the streets because the 5' 100lb woman can put two in your chest before you lay a hand on her.
1
>"lunch time" >implying you'd have the balls to do it during daylight
1
***** >Implying you have the balls to face people on the terrain they have the advantage on
1
+stephen degraaf he can drag me down to his level, the lower it gets the better. There's nothing like people showing their true colours by projecting murder fantasies at a parody of their own type of speech.
1
+Abnormal Wrench it was a parody of your rhetorical devices. Glad you found them to be unfair. Feel free to apologize.
1
***** I seem to have provoked a nervous breakdown. This is the problem with you people. Your scatterbrains are all over the place while the majority of the gun-rights people are focused on a common goal. That's why we win, and you will lose - then, now, forever. You can't argue for shit, I don't have enough insight into your day to day but you either clearly lack the intelligence to make a coherent argument or you've let hatred and bigotry cloud your judgement to the point you can't engage in a discussion without bringing up all the logical fallacies in the book. Now you've proven to be unstable, sending multiple comments 40 minutes apart like some sort of maniac. No gun person I've ever met would act like this, even online.
1
Pot calling the kettle black, much? You're judging the United States from a handful of comments posted on a YouTube video. You don't know if they are the same person or if they even are American.
1
Twitch is garbage.
1
So if I legally change my name to John Smith and kill 70 people in a mass shooting, making me the world's most deadly mass shooter, this extremely common name should be outlawed?
1
How many of them were trained, though? How many of them had guns? This proves nothing. This was a sick experiment. A terrible, disgusting joke of a "test". What if a teacher kept his/her head cool and stuck a pencil trough the shooter's eye socket? Or if a teacher that does martial arts disarmed the shooter and shot him pointblank (blanks kill at close range)?
1
The irony is that this was most likely a "test" made by anti-gun people. They are usually ignorant about what they are dealing with, I wouldn't doubt that whoever was the sick bastard who thought of this probably didn't know that blank firing guns have killed people before or that a teacher paranoid about a school shooting could have brought a gun into school illegally. I wouldn't say "fuck this country", I'd say "fuck the people in charge".
1
Children were not in school, only teacher meetings were targeted by the fake attack.
1
@ultimatepaine6401 I don't see how that's meant to address my point. From the perspective of the very far left, liberalism is still in favour of capitalism and to them any system that doesn't oppose capitalism is fascism. Ask the true believers at antifa and they'll tell you that liberals get the bullet too. My point is that fascism is a really specific political system and trying to throw around the word fascism is just dumb.
1
I got to this news from a pro-gun website and pro-gun people are ANGRY. This was most likely done by anti-gun people, not the pro-gun side. This was extremely retarded. I am pro-gun - I don't even want people shooting up places with blanks, let alone real guns. You are extremely prejudiced. You're a bigot and you know NOTHING about pro-gun people. All of us think this was a terrible mistake as PEOPLE HAVE BEEN KILLED BY BLANK GUNS before.
1
@bjornabrahamsson4213 that's fine because the algorithm has determined that the way to keep you watching is to feed you those recommendations. But YT won't promote it to anyone who isn't laser-focused on those channels. That's a problem because it limits growth and kills any new channels without thousands of viewers.
1
>It doesn't follow. Yes, it does. First, gives bad publicity to the pro-gun side. Second, it somehow proves something about people not being able to react to a shooter. >What's far more likely is that it was a group of gun nuts trying to make a point of how defenseless they were. The pro gun side is realist. They would have considered someone fighting back and getting killed/kill the shooter. >no regard for human life >no business being anywhere near firearms Yeap, they were anti gun.
1