Comments by "TheThirdMan" (@thethirdman225) on "VICE" channel.

  1.  @SumTinWong01  This is coercion. Putting fear into women to channel them into buying guns. It's just another form of oppression.
    9
  2. Yeah, what sort of a world would it be if we got to hear more than one side of the story?
    7
  3. Semper Paratus Why would anyone want to go to Texas in the first place?
    7
  4.  @doggolover3447  Wow. Did you think of that all by yourself?
    7
  5. Didn't you hear what they said? A woman with a gun is more likely to be murdered than one who is unarmed.
    5
  6. orfang That’s a nice nebulous answer. And you think what? That I haven’t looked at information from those sources or that you can make vague illusory remarks like that and call them proof? Where’s the debunk of the UP study? You put something like that up as an Aunt Sally argument and expect to be able to carry out this charade without providing any evidence? Show me me why it wasn’t scientific or accurate. Show me where the methodology is wrong. Show me what has changed since. You claimed it was made up. You provided no evidence. Your claims are starting to sound like a hoax, so forgive me and I suspect others for not believing you.
    4
  7. Scott Kendrix Australian and British gun laws were introduced by conservatives. Australian gun laws are supported by 85-90% of the population. Calling this part of some socialist agenda just shows how far out of touch with reality you are. Now where’s the proof of your claim? Or are you hoping I wouldn’t notice? And spare me the gun lobby boilerplate about the 2A protecting all the others. What a joke. You’re supposed to be the worlds greatest democracy. The idea that guns are in the constitution to protect against tyranny is more in line with a communist dictatorship.
    4
  8. 00 BUCK Oooh, a hero in the making. Do you really expect people to be breaking into your home while you are there? Let me ask you this rhetorical question: how many times has your home been broken into during the day when you are not there? Because most of those guys are there just to steal your TV. What they don’t want is to be seen. So to put that into context, they’re much more likely to do it during the day when you’re not there than they are at night and they’re not really interested in coming into contact with home owners who could identify them. Do you really think you’re going to be facing Bubba and his mates breaking into your house at 3:00 am for some recreational looting, raping and killing? Do you really think guns are the only answer? My 80 year-old mother was home one day while her car was being serviced so there was no indication that anyone was there. She walked into the bedroom and found a guy with his leg over the window sill. She screamed and he ran like a stuck pig. Can she use a gun? No. Would she want one even now? No. Response? Put better locks on the windows. NYC police found that making house breaking just a little bit harder makes it much rarer, while studies show that a gun in the home is between three and thirteen time more likely to be used on a relative or intimate partner than on a crook. Studies also show that you’re 80% more likely to use it on yourself. But go ahead and get a gun if that’s what you want. You’re entitled to have one for “personal protection” in the United States. But remember this, your murder rate is five times what ours is and your gun murder rate a staggering 25 times what ours is. So while you’re hiding under the bed and being Travis Bickle in the bathroom mirror, I sleep like a log. I don’t know if you’re paranoid, scared or just dying to be a hero but it’s your problem, not mine. But don’t give me this bullshit polemic that says guns are the only solution. They’re not. They’re not even a good solution.
    4
  9. arynn ritter How dare anyone present both sides?
    3
  10. Joshua Spencer No, you’re 100% victim. I can walk around my neighbourhood at night without fear. I don’t hide under the bed waiting for someone to break in because the gun manufacturers have told me to be afraid. If anyone wants to break into my house, they’ll do it when I’m not here, just like they do it everywhere else except in your head. And that’s where the problem lies... Associating guns and heroics the way you do sounds good to you and pathetic to me and, I suspect a lot of others. Good luck with your projects.
    3
  11.  @pink_love_cat4928  "as long as both sides are talking we can find common ground" I hope so. Not often you get a "no hard feelings" in this debate. From either side. Same from me.
    3
  12. Scott Kendrix Already read it. A pro-gun opinion piece, quoting - or rather, misquoting - hackneyed, disproven research and the opinion of one doctor. I agree: the CDC really should do a study on it. But you can bet that if it does, the NRA will do all it can to stop the results being published. The CDC was stopped by a bill resulting from NRA pressure, from doing a study on the cost of gun violence to America. A cost/benefit examination would have to be included in such a study. There is no way an inquiry like that is going to back up your claim. And this link doesn’t go any way towards proving your other claims that the information I posted earlier was bogus.
    3
  13.  @unept96  Is that really your level of understanding?
    3
  14. @Omgitsjoetime T What the hell do you care? Former shooter and gun owner. Shot everything from black powder to a Bren LMG. Shot pistols too. But so what? What do you care?
    3
  15. "The CDC study showing between 500 thousand and 3 MILLION defensive uses of firearms every year would beg to differ. Typical anti gunner making shit up to fit her agenda." That DGU claim has been debunked more times than I've had hot dinners. It's also 25 years old. Would you like the details?
    3
  16. @Wurzel Sure. This figure comes from a random telephone survey conducted in 1995 by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz (making it 25 years old). They dialled 4,000 random numbers (4,000 is a pretty good sample size) and asked if anyone had ever used a gun to prevent a crime. On the surface this sounds fine but you don't have to look very far to see the problems. Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig (University of Ill.) conducted a similar survey in 1998 which corrected for false positives: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226799270_Defensive_Gun_Uses_New_Evidence_from_a_National_Survey While they made no attempts to establish an exact figure, they established by simple statistics that the Kleck & Gertz survey was wildly inaccurate and that the real figure was a lot closer to the NCVS findings. Kleck himself no longer quotes it saying that between 35 and 65% of those DGUs were probably illegal. Kleck's survey is the most over-quoted, malignant piece of disinformation that has ever been accepted into mainstream social science research. The problem is that there are very, very few credible surveys and almost none done in the last 20 years. The CDC was barred from conducting research into the cost of gun violence to the American taxpayer and has been gun shy ever since. That is why the CDC report is so vague (incidentally, the CDC does not actually validate Kleck’s original survey, despite what most gun nuts think).
    3
  17. AMERICAN x NIGHTMARE In terms of rates, which is the only useful measurement, American women own guns at - from memory - about five to seven times the rate of Canadian women. Rates are the best way because they correct for population size.
    3
  18. GIZZMO GAMING Doing what the gun lobby does best; blaming the victims.
    2
  19. Nate Shepardson Blaming the victim again. If I thought you were being objective about this I might consider the victim contribution but since the gun lobby flatly refuses to acknowledge that guns are dangerous, I am disinclined to do so. In the gun lobby’s simplistic world, nobody can ever make a mistake, human error qualifies you for a Darwin Award and guns aren’t dangerous. We hear different versions of it all the time but the simplistic underlying dogma is always the same; “guns don’t kill, people kill.” This nonsense totally ignores the fact that guns are marketed as being for self protection while actually costing the community far more than any benefit gained. This is almost the same marketing policy cigarette manufacturers used in the 1940s, all the while knowing their products were potentially lethal. Gun manufacturers will never acknowledge that there are far more people murdered with guns than there are justified homicides. They will never acknowledge that university papers time and again point out that a gun in the home is between three and thirteen times more likely to be used on a relative or intimate partner than on a crook and that you 80% more likely to use it or yourself. This is the kind of evidence that will eventually open the door for civil cases against gun manufacturers, which is exactly the way it is applied to every other product. Gun manufacturers should not be above the law.
    2
  20.  @SpokeNipples  Did you not read what I said? Did you not read the reference provided? A woman carrying a gun is more likely to be disarmed a killed than one who is not. So your hypothetical is irrelevant.
    2
  21.  @DeathGrunt666  Fair enough.
    2
  22.  @DeathGrunt666  "We just need a system that prevents guns from being smuggled and sold to unstable individuals." Okay but what would you say about the law that was passed in Texas last year that allows a person over 21 to buy a gun without a background check ? Because there are lots of other areas where the gun lobby and its tame collection of house members and senators have blocked even simpler legislation, such as anti-terrorism laws which would prevent the sale of guns to anyone with a red flag against their name.
    2
  23.  @arynnritter4293  How so?
    2
  24.  @sallutter8162  How? You mean you don't agree with what they say. They sought the views of the NRA and the NRA chose not to say anything. That is PR suicide. They don't have to tell you what you want to hear.
    2
  25.  @stlalways6715  The NRA was given the opportunity to respond. They declined. That's their fault, not Vice's.
    2
  26.  @stlalways6715  "so you are openly saying that Vice is clearly partisan." Gun lobby logic...Jesus... No, I'm saying Vice complied with their journalism obligations by providing both sides with the opportunity to respond. The fact that the NRA chose not to does not oblige Vice to present their side of the story, since it would be a false representation, given that there was no response. Rule number 1 of media relations: when approached by the media, you respond. "A respectable journalist would simply provide clear information so that viewers or readers come to a conclusion." You mean provide what you want to hear. Vice is not obliged to tell you what you want to hear. "The questions asked are typically enough to tell if someone has an agenda or if they are seeking facts." The consistent theme is that people from the gun lobby wouldn't know a fact if it jumped out of their morning breakfast and bit them on the nose.
    2
  27.  @JoriMikke78  Wow, I just looked him up. He's a real piece of work, isn't he? Barred from Facebook and Twitter, etc.. Thanks for the tip off.
    2
  28. You need to see how it works in Australia. Just because criminals don't follow the law doesn't mean the law is wrong, stupid or ineffective. Do you want to abandon anti-paedophilia laws because paedophiles will always molest children? Rapists will always rape so we should abandon rape laws...by your own logic.
    2
  29. You ought to be more worried about the spare tyre around your waist line.
    2
  30. I agree. Good to see both sides of the story instead of just the gun lobby version everyone here was hoping for.
    2
  31.  @pantsgoboom  If the story was biased in any way, it was the fault of the NRA. If you go to the end, there is a post script which points out that they were approached for comment but declined to do so. That is suicide in a situation like this and 100% their fault. They were given the option and they declined. Vice complied with their code of ethics.
    2
  32. That's why it's measured in numbers per 100,000 people...
    2
  33.  @FadingSwordsman  No, this is for rates. It's obvious to anyone that the rate of gun ownership for American women is far higher but these things are better expressed in terms of numbers per 100,000 population. That way people don't get flustered by simple numbers and more accurate assessments of the overall presence of gun in the population can be made. 743/100,000 for Canada vs between 3,692 and 5,230/100,000 for the USA. So American women own guns at between five and seven times the rate of Canadian women. What is your point?
    2
  34. Everyone in a free country has a right to go about their business without fear of being shot. Everyone equally has a right to go unarmed. Why are gun rights seen as more important than these other two? Let me remind you what your Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness;"
    2
  35. Nitesh Kumar You should go to Australia or New Zealand one day.
    2
  36.  @davidbrock4104  And Indianapolis has a murder rate of over 17/100K, which is more than 3 times the national average. Great idea...
    2
  37.  @pink_love_cat4928  You are such a victim. You really feel threatened, don't you? "London has a higher murder rate than New York" London had a higher murder rate than New York for one month - February, 2018 - after which it returned to being lower. It had nothing to do with gun laws, which have been in place there for 25 years, and everything to do with the government's failure to maintain an effective police force. The result of this lack of government funding is that the Met is now short of thousands of officers. That is why crime spiked in London Bubele. But aren't you missing something? London's murder rate has always been lower than that of New York until that one month. And the UK murder rate is one fifth of the US. Trust me: this is not a point in your favour. "as soon as the gun ban hit crime went through the damn roof" Prove it. This is so broad and so nebulous as to be meaningless. Crime spikes happen around the world, even in the good ol' USA. Londoners have never used guns for personal protection. The rest of your post is just an angry, emotionally-charged, hate filled, unintelligible rant of zero interest to me. You'd think those things never happened anywhere else. However, your lack of self-control is a serious issue if you are a gun owner. Perhaps you are one of those people who simply should not have access to guns because you can't control yourself..
    2
  38.  @pink_love_cat4928  gun ownership has been going up since 2000s" According to Pew Research, who have been following this for decades, American gun ownership has been going down. in the mid-70's approximately 45% of houses had a gun. Now that figure is 32%. It is just more highly concentrated with most owners being middle aged white males. "crime has been going down proves my point" Your murder rate stagnated about 2008 and has since gone up slightly. Either way, as the gun lobby is fond of saying, correlation does not equal causation. "but lets just say gangs are responsible for 13% so that leaves 67% drug related but you wouldn't know that" I wouldn't say it because it's illogical. It's also not what the link says. "if i had to guess id say you have lived a spoiled and sheltered life in a gated community where criminals wear tuxedos and crimes are not related to drugs far away from The Real World" Down to personal attacks, eh? That's a pathetic way to debate... positively effeminate! LOL!! I have lived in other parts of the world and have worked in some absolute hell holes. I've seen Crowder. He's not that good. I'd happily debate him. Any time.
    2
  39.  @jdechols3659  Why are you the only state that can secede from the U.S.? I have never heard that before.
    2
  40.  @jdechols3659  Okay, I researched it and the answer is basically no. https://www.texastribune.org/2016/06/24/can-texas-legally-secede-united-states/
    2
  41. Noble Nomad Responsible journalism covers both sides of the story, not just the side that makes you feel good about yourself. You will note, of course, that they approached the NRA who waived their right to comment.
    2
  42.  @thebardock6785  "note how at the end of the video they never discuss how many lives are saved by guns as well by defensive use" I don't even know where to start with this. The gun lobby is still quoting the same discredited 500,000 - 2 million DGUs per year and most people who quote it claim that equals 500,000 to 2 million lives saved, which is a massive leap of faith to say the least. More recent and credible research puts the figure much lower. The NCVS, which examines every crime on a case-by-case basis reports around 65,000 per year. Even that does not equate to 65,000 lives saved because we simply don't have enough information to make that judgement.. "NRA probably doesn't care to speak anymore or they lied about trying to contact " This is ridiculous. No credible outlet is ever going to do that. The first the NRA would do is call them out on it. It seems that everyone here has the same problem: you simply can't tolerate balanced reporting. By balanced I mean showing both sides of the story. You regard that as bias, lies, agenda-driven, irresponsible...call it what you will. You only want your side covered. Anyone with a better than room-temperature IQ can see that the reporter here not only approached the gun range but the NRA as well, giving the gun lobby not one but two opportunities to speak. I would say that would have given the gun lobby well over half the air time, granting them a slightly unfair advantage. Journalism is reporting what some people don't want to hear. Everything else is salesmanship (Hearst).
    2
  43. unept96 Look it up. A woman carrying a gun is more likely to be murdered than one who isn’t carrying. https://wagv.org/about-gun-violence/women-and-guns/
    2
  44. Dethglock Look up the sources it quotes and stop using emotional, unfounded and faux logic arguments.
    2
  45.  @orfang   "A debunked 2003 study by Douglas Wiebe of the University of Pennsylvania is hardly scientific nor accurate." Debunked? By whom? Link please. "The Trace? Really? Is there any other org that is likely funded by bloomberg, MDA, WAGV? How about using government sources direct databases?" You show me one impartial study by pro-gun academics.
    2
  46. orfang Where’s the link to this government database?
    2
  47. Scott Kendrix Prove it. With links. Otherwise you’re bluffing.
    2
  48. Scott Kendrix This is laughable. What the hell did they teach you in civics class? Being a constitutional republic does not invalidate the point that America is also a democracy. D’uh! Your claim about 2A has nothing to do with the reality on this. As for gun control being a socialist movement, well, in case you didn’t hear it the first time Bubele, Australian gun laws enjoy 85-90% support. https://newmatilda.com/2015/07/21/whos-right-nra-or-85-cent-australians/ It’s not like it’s some insidious underground movement designed to undermine world governments either. It’s what people want. Last time I checked, about 60% of Americans wanted more gun control and that included registered Republicans. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/28/gun-control-polling-parkland-430099 Given your understanding of the workings of your own government, I would say you actually have little understanding of how any of this would play out.
    2
  49. @Justin Cavinder " if the party that pushed gun control in Australia called themselves conservative then they don't know what conservative is and they are so in NAME ONLY." A definition of conservative that is based solely on gun laws would seem to be rather narrow. The Howard government was also big business, small government, anti-immigration, pro-small business, pro-religion, lower taxation, anti-gay, anti-climate change and anti abortion. "To be Conservative among other things, is to be pro small federal government and pro gun." Pro small government yes. Pro gun, no. Just because you are conservative, that doesn't prevent you from doing things that you deem to be in the public interest. That is the function of any government: the public interest. "Conservative so no they weren't ever conservatives whether they called themselves conservative or you're just making it up." The British government of John Major were also conservative. You might recall that they were the remnants of Maggie Thatcher's Tory government which was the power in Britain in the 1980s. "Which is highly likely as I've seen footage of news networks interviewing many conservative Aussie citizens at the time of the gun buy back and they were ALL saying how tyrannical it was and that they didn't trust the government etc etc." Let me tell you something you don't know about Australia. We are not and never have been a gun culture. Only about 5% of Australians own guns and that number is falling. The gun groups here made the mistake of talking about gun ownership as a right, which it is not. It is only a right in the United States and even then, that right is limited. The media, on the other hand, are required to show both sides of the story and that is why you saw a bunch of angry gun owners (about whom nobody gave two shits). Also shooters in Australia don't necessarily identify as what you would call conservative. Many of them are fairly left wing. "Youre a fool to believe real conservatives spear headed gun confiscation ANYWHERE in the world." "Confiscation"... LOL!! That's just victim speak. Lots of things get outlawed because they are dangerous. I can think of no other example where the owners were compensated at market value for their loss. And, incidentally, many of the owners simply went out and bought new (legal) guns.
    2
  50.  @omgitsjoetime  Is that all you've got? LOL!!
    2