Comments by "Hobbs" (@hobbso8508) on "Shooting survivor confronts NRA spokesperson Dana Loesch" video.

@rossthomson1958 Not really no.
2
@rossthomson1958 Vehicle attacks are much harder to actually fulfil. They require a lot of factors that do not exist for guns. First and foremost, the existence of roads, lack of other vehicles, lack of bollards and other vehicle blockers and so on. You need a large group of people out on a road, and even then actually hitting them is usually non-lethal unless you are moving with some speed, and it's much easier to get out of the way of compared to bullets. Knives are even harder to achieve this kind of mass attack with. From the knives attacks we've seen around the world they are more easily stopped, have less victims, have a lower mortality rate, require a certain level of strength and skill to achieve and the attack is far more personal. You don't get kids going into schools and killing 6 people with a knife. The idea that someone could go to a hotel room and kill 60 people, injuring over 400 more, with just some knives is silly. The idea that someone could go into a nightclub and kill 49 people with knives is also silly. I'm sure you'll point to the Nice truck attack as an example of how cars can be worse, however the very special set of circumstances for that to happen mean it can only happen on a couple of days of the year. That fact is also overshadowed by both the ease of an event like that using guns on any less populated day, as well as the specific even that happened only months before in Paris, where armed terrorists killed 130 people. Guns are specifically designed to kill. They are impersonal, fast, long-ranged, accurate and incredibly lethal. That is why attacks using guns are so much worse.
1
@rossthomson1958 I already talked about that, try reading my response. The Paris attack in 2015 was worse than Nice.
1
@rossthomson1958 Not really. Nice had to happen in a specific day and in a specific area. There is a reason school killings don't happen with cars, they have these things called walls.
1
@rossthomson1958 Or the mother being shot. Amazing you missed that part.
1
@rossthomson1958 And where is this black market? Oh right, guns purchased from US stores.
1
@rossthomson1958 Why should we put guns in the hands of criminals?
1
@rossthomson1958 They absolutely are purchased from US stores. They are then either given to, sold to or stolen by criminals. This is the black market illegal guns you are talking about, they are from the US.
1
@rossthomson1958 "see california strict gun laws and violence has increased, criminals are finding it easier to commit crimes against an unarmed populace" Because they are importing guns from other states. "just saying let’s get rid of guns won’t fix gun crime instead your stopping people protecting themselves" Worked for other countries. "yes they come from the US but making stricter gun laws won’t be an issue with criminals because you guess what they don’t follow laws" Yes it will. Other countries have shown this. You just think that because you are comparing states to other states, when we have no way to stop interstate guns. "the price of guns will increase and it makes it more lucrative for illegal gun sellers" And more dangerous for them, and harder to get away with, and more expensive for criminals.
1
@rossthomson1958 "did you forget that criminal no longer have to fear a gun owner trying to defend his store or home" Which assumes they have guns in the first place. With much heavier restrictions you both make the risk of being seen with a gun too great, and also make crimes with guns too risky. Sure, it will still happen in isolated incidents, but far far less. You also seem to have jumped to the conclusion that I am saying people should never have guns, but I can go into this more in my points later. "what countries have stopped Gun ownership or stricter gun laws and has stopped crime" Nobody is suggesting they stopped all crime, however, Australia put a massive swathe of restrictions of firearms after a mass shooting there. With 35 deaths and 24 more injured they decided enough was enough. In the 26 years since they have seen drops in both violent crime and murder, and have also sharply reduced mass shooting events. Guns are also still legal there, but the types of firearms are restricted. The culture around guns changed. "no it won’t because your encouraging criminals to get into that business. Just like with petty thieves in Columbia they saw a opportunity to make money with the cartels and they took it" They're already in that business, but if the market becomes more expensive and many criminals get squeezed out of the sector by both danger and expense then the market will shrink, not expand. What's worse is the cartels you mentioned get their guns from the US. The US is already many times more lethal than other developed nations, with guns making up around 3/4 of all US murders, and the high murder rate putting you below Kenya Niger and Pakistan. Countries with restrictions however see much lower murder rates, such as Japan, Germany, Austria, the UK, Australia and more. Many Americans like to point to Switzerland as an example, however Switzerland has a tonne of reasons for the gun culture being vastly different. They have, for example: Required military service for all men. Weapon acquisition licenses only good for single purchases. Acquaintance and police interviews before the application is granted. Have to pass exams both theory and practical to carry. Doctors can inform the police of people with mental health problems should they own or try to own a gun. If used for sport the gun can only be taken too and from the shooting range, and cannot be loaded during transportation. Ammunition must be separate. The mixture of high levels of training and the laws surrounding ownership make a country that has a lot of guns infinitely safer than the US.
1
@rossthomson1958 "actually Australia has seen an increase in crime from 1980s to 2010s" Which peaked in the late 90s and decreased from there on, you know, just after the gun restrictions and buybacks which saw drops in violent crimes and suicides. Using the 80s to cover the 90s is just silly. "the cartels don't fear the law neither do criminals in the US" You're missing the point, they get their guns from the US. If they didn't fear the law they would try to get their guns from Mexico. Obviously Mexico's restrictions work. "Many places In America it takes 20-30 mins for a police officer to arrive on scene by that time the home owner is dead and the criminals are gone" So why are you in favour of giving them guns? "so it won't be a suprise that you see people take safety in their own hands and buy a gun to protect themselves" Which is fine, as long as they pass the proper requirements to get a license and register their gun. "https://youtu.be/gy_wrTVIuqM" Missing the point 101. How about we stop giving guns to criminals. "if you want mental health checks that's good but people can always manipulate that, and when that doesn't work they will turn to gun restrictions" Works everywhere else, and has been shown to be a good way to stop several shootings already where a mental health check would have seen the issue, mainly around school shootings. Even if they can be manipulated, all you are advocating for is better mental health checks. You're too scared to use a better system because it might not work 100% of the time. Well now it works 0% of the time because we don't use them at all. But keep writing several separate comments of pure ignorance, showing that you are so far from seeing the point that your eyes aren't even open, while complaining about having to read less than a page of words.
1
@arielkarat4338 I actually don't think separate IDs will do anything. Most illegal gins come from private sales, straw purchases and theft. If anything you just alienate people looking for jobs, which makes recidivism worse. Your idea of people with guns rising up against a fascist government is a fantasy. If the military are on the side of the fascists then so are many gun owners. The idea that the military would be one way, and the vast majority of gun owners would be the other, is just not based in political reality. Most fascistic takeovers are done with consent. The irony of you saying that the government shouldn't decide who can have guns when you literally just said they should have separate IDs to stop people having guns seems lost on you. And no, having guns is not a basic human right. There are 30 human rights, and that isn't one of them. The fact that you put it on par with eating and drinking, while also saying we should take that right away from criminals, says that you think that criminals don't deserve human rights, even after they have served their sentences. This dehumanisation is exactly the sort of fascist crap I mean when I say that gun owners will be the ones supporting the fascists.
1
@arielkarat4338 You seem confused about Nazi Germany for starters. The Nazi party actually made guns easier to get for the vast majority of Germans. They overturned strict laws of 1928 and allowed more Germans to buy and keep guns. In fact the laws of 1919 were so strict that guns were banned, and it took 2 decades to get to the point you are talking about. So why was it only after guns were allowed did the holocaust happen? And again, you seem confused about fascism. The fascists will be supported by the gun nuts. Guns were not banned in North Korea until 2009, about 6 decades after the Korean war. So what exactly took them so long? I mean seriously, they had famines and totalitarianism for decades and no civil outbreak in the region. But now you're telling me if only the people had guns...I mean not the military, some other people...if only they had guns then this would not be happening. You have a right to life, and attacks are a threat on your rights. Attacking someone with more force to defend yourself is arguably a violation of their right to life. This is why the idea of reasonable force exists.
1
@arielkarat4338 So you think that if 1 small group of people had guns then that would have stopped the rest of the country murdering them? Jews didn't even make up 1% of the German population in 1933, what on earth makes you think that them having guns would achieve anything, when all the other other Germans with guns have openly approved of their removal. Here's a fun idea, what would the holocaust have looked like if nobody had guns?
1
@arielkarat4338 "good people need guns and bad people don't need guns this is all the story." But according to Nazi Germany that's exactly what they did. Do you not see how your exact mentality is toxic?
1
@arielkarat4338 This right here is the comment where you lost. You stopped arguing the issue and shifted to ideology. Arguing that you will refuse to change is not an argument of right a wrong, but one of ignorance and indoctrination. Your ideology was challenged so you hunkered down and said "no" while holding your breath. Meanwhile the US murder rate is still higher than Kenya's, mass shootings are so common that many are not even national news, gangs, children and the mentally ill regularly have access to firearms, police regularly shoot and kill US citizens, and you are so far gone that none of this seems abnormal to you. Have fun with your nationalistic rhetoric. I'm sure when Trump tries to start a revolution you'll be at the front overthrowing the government on his behalf while openly proclaiming that you are not the fascist.
1
@arielkarat4338 "pay attention where you have most crimes in the country New York , Washington ,New Jersey ,California , Florida, Illinois... in this places you have a lot of gun control." 1. You're just naming the places where the most people live. Of course these places have a lot of crimes, that doesn't mean they have high crime rates. 2. You've never been to Florida either have you. The idea that we have a lot of gun restrictions is laughable. 3. Here is a list of states with a higher crime rate than the states you just said: Louisiana Missouri Nevada Maryland Arkansas Alaska Alabama Mississippi And finally Illinois Or we could look at the violent crime rates: Alaska New Mexico Tennessee Arkansas Arizona Louisiana Missouri South Carolina South Dakota Michigan Montana Nevada Oklahoma Alabama Texas And finally California So you were off by a LOT, even naming some states that made it on the crime and violent crime lists above the totally violent states you listed, claiming they are more safe. It's actually comedic how wrong you are. "more than 3 million US Americans use guns to defend their life every year. " This stat is pulled from a phone survey, and includes people who open carried and felt safer. Harvard has an entire page on the issue, even showing a study where: "Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments, and are both socially undesirable and illegal" So relying on a self-reporting study where people are openly admitting to committing crimes with guns isn't exactly a starting point. "and 40,000 crimes with guns including gun accidents." So who the hell are 3 million people defending themselves from? This number is also only deaths, not injuries, and not armed crimes. "in 2019 : 1,470 homicides with knives. 350 homicides with rifles. 630 homicides with handguns. 800 homicides with bare hands." Not according to the FBI. In fact, according to the FBI Expanded Homicide Data Table 8, in 2019 there were 13,927 homicides. Of these homicides by various methods are shown below: Total firearms: 10,258 Handguns: 6,368 Rifles: 364 Shotguns: 200 Other guns: 45 Firearms, type not states: 3,281 Knives or cutting instruments: 1,476 Personal weapons: 600 So according to the FBI, firearms where the cause of almost 5 times as many homicides as knives and personal weapons combined. No idea where you go the number 630 homicides with handguns, you probably missed a digit and rounded down by the looks of it. "I support Ted Cruz" So the guy that failed to effectively support his states energy grid, and abandoned his people during a blizzard. Why am I not surprised.
1
@arielkarat4338 "3 million people defend themself you asked a good question. from who they defend themselves. From someone or something that attacks them going to kill them or cause them Severe injuries." Doubt. You think there are 3 million assaults per year? Get a grip. Again, this data has been heavily debunked. "for example, in a place where is 1,000 attacks and 100% of people that use their weapons to defend themselves against the attacks and win against the attack, this is a good place." According to who? What if 90% of those "defenses" were actually just people escalating situations as the Harvard analysis suggests? "a bad place is a place where there are 100 attacks and 1% that succeed to defend themselves." So one tenth the attacks, but it's worse. lol. "your statistic literally support my argument because you show in what states there are the most people that succeed to defend themselves" Those numbers are homicides. Self-defense stats have no bearing on homicides.
1
@arielkarat4338 "If this is the most powerful argument that you can make against Cruz it's just show how much great he is." I mean its the most politically damning thing he's done for some time, but lets not act like I agree with any of his policies. We get he, he doesn't want women to have rights, people to have healthcare or children to have education. Also weird you insult DeSantis. Screw DeSantis.
1
@arielkarat4338 Ashamed? They are the new normal for your party buddy.
1
@arielkarat4338 Right, because you don't believe in human rights. We've been over this. your also blatantly misrepresented the stats, then lied when called out, so of course you're a Republican.
1
@arielkarat4338 Yet you stan Fox News, and not just any Fox News, but Tucker Carlson, a man so dishonest he won a lawsuit on the grounds that nobody could ever be expected to take him seriously.
1
@arielkarat4338 Not sure why. Again he lies all the time and has absolutely no reason to tell the truth.
1
@arielkarat4338 The truth is that Tucker cannot be taken seriously, as per HIS OWN LAWYERS. Tucker is a lying, white supremist supporting, fearmongering, conspiracy theory spreading, sexist, fascist, racist who finds it all to easy to stoke fears in cult followers. Also, those videos are all too easy to make. Here: https://youtu.be/NzDhm808oU4 I mean, there are mostly unprompted and are active rally supporters. Some of these people have been interviewed multiple times, and are consistently stupid while also being incredibly strong supporters. Your video is nothing in comparison, and there are a good 60+ of these. But sure, lets go with the 9 year old video of people on the street, and not the up to date video of active political supporters.
1
@arielkarat4338 Again, you are comparing people who frankly aren't that into politics to incredibly politically active people. You could easily do the same thing that Mark is doing at any right-wing stronghold, and the end result would just be that some people, who frankly aren't that into politics, don't know a lot about some political candidates. Meanwhile we have streams of active and loyal Trump supporters holding a vigil for those arrested from attacking police officers and trying to overturn the election on Jan 6th. This is not a 2 sides argument, because the side you are presenting are just not interested in politics.
1
@arielkarat4338 Oh, look at that, Tucker Carlson says he's rooting for Russia in their invasion of Ukraine. Imagine that.
1