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

Nanofuture87
Jubilee
comments

Comments by "Nanofuture87" (@Nanofuture87) on "Pro-Gun Vs. Anti-Gun: Is There Middle Ground? | Middle Ground" video.

@pokahman236 That's not actually true.
8
As an American watching what's going on in Australia, you have your own problems to worry about.
7
@Bob-sx7iv It worked pretty well when the colonists rebelled against the crown and founded the United States. You can keep trying to sell your authoritarianism, but we aren't buying.
6
@Bob-sx7iv It makes you look ridiculous when you have no idea what you are talking about.
5
@timothygriffith2740 "Your "rights" were just made up and are quite literally whatever the government at any given time dictates as a right....right?" False. Rights are part of human nature. The notion that rights come from government is incoherent as then people wouldn't have had the right to form governments in the first place, plus the conclusion would then be that any and every decree of any government would be just. " There are already TONS of restrictions and limitations on several of your "rights"." Correct, the government does infringe on human rights on a regular basis. This is not an argument for the government to infringe more, but rather an argument to make them stop.
5
@cfc.havertz3686 No, I'm not. Curfews, limits to how far you can travel, quarantine camps for international travelers, protestors arrested, even simply voicing support for protests has gotten people arrested, and more. It's dystopian.
5
@cfc.havertz3686 If you think those things are perfectly justified, then you're just a sheep that accepts authoritarianism and your opinion is irrelevant.
5
Finland isn't the US. Our culture and situation is not the same as yours ever was.
4
@Bob-sx7iv You're showing your buffoonery again. This isn't a matter of human biology. You're like the neocons who say we can just impose liberal democracy onto a theocratic society and expect it to work, then in reality it collapses in a matter of weeks after we stop propping it up.
4
Killing in self defense isn't murder.
4
@cfc.havertz3686 authoritarianism (n) the enforcement or advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom.
4
@Bob-sx7iv You have no logic and reasoning, you just have emotional rants and make unjustified assertions. Finnish gun culture is based around hunting rather than self defense, they have a fraction of our population and lower population density, their demographics are different, their history is different, their climate is different, etc. There are all manner of factors differentiating the two countries to explain why dropping a policy from Finland onto the US won't have the same effect.
3
@Bob-sx7iv I don't know who you are responding to, but apparently it isn't me because I said nothing about us being "supermen." We are different, that's all.
3
It's not being afraid, it's just not ignoring observable reality. The odds that I'll ever need to use my fire extinguisher or a bunch of the stuff in my first aid kit are quite low, but I have them because the possibility that I'll need them exists. The same goes for guns. As for deciding when and why you can take someone's life, your actions are ultimately your decision. No one else can decide for you. You can be held accountable for those actions afterwards, but you have to decide.
3
@Bob-sx7iv Wrong. Slaves and serfs were barred from keeping and bearing arms.
3
Those are rookie numbers, we need to get those numbers up. As for taking away firearms... try it, see how that goes.
3
Let me know when you get guns away from the government and I'll consider it.
3
@Bob-sx7iv Yes, the British military used guns. Do you think the government is going to ban guns from its military when it enacts your imagined gun ban? If so you're even more delusional than I thought.
3
Neat, maybe they'll be able to catch your killer when they show up way too late to save you.
3
@calamity2956 Bats, hammers, and fists exist and can put an end to you just fine.
3
He's also a billionaire protected by plot armor.
3
@Bob-sx7iv The Constitution is ink on parchment. It doesn't have magical powers to stop tyranny.
3
Well that's an incredibly misleading statement. Other countries still have hundreds of gun deaths. As for the second part, what is it about liberty and the right to defend yourself that is so hard for non-Americans to understand?
3
@Bob-sx7iv Goons are authoritarians trying to strip away liberty from other people and cowards are the ones who hide behind the police to do it. If you're a brave boy, come and try to take them yourself.
2
Because guns are more effective than machetes, sticks, and blades. Sometimes you can't de-escalate.
2
@jamespohh8396 A lot of martial arts, including forms of jujutsu, are not actually suitable for real world altercations. Even for fighting styles that are suitable, being small and light still puts you at an inherent disadvantage.
2
@Bob-sx7iv So I guess we can expect all that armed security around politicians and the wealthy to toss away their guns because they don't protect you, right?
2
@Bob-sx7iv Okey dokey. Tell you what: once you convince the secret service, police, military, and private security that their guns are useless and not keeping anyone safe so they get rid of theirs, then I'll consider it. In reality they'll just laugh in your face because your assertion is absurd on its face as people defend themselves and others with guns all the time.
2
@Bob-sx7iv Now we get mass shootings in Norway, just with a bow instead of a gun. What country has banned guns? What country has completely disarmed its military and police?
2
Fairly certain rapes aren't being committed by Superman. Shoot a rapist and you will stop them.
2
@Bob-sx7iv "shoot an innocent person and you will stop them which is what is actually happening out there" Rapists are innocent people? K. "rapists arent being stopped by guns because the victim isnt able to get to a weapon in time in the first place" Except when they are able to do exactly that. "secondly the rapist is most likely their date and they are both drunk" So only drunk people rape or get raped? K. "arming everyone never ever works" Except when it does. "what works is gun bans" Keep dreaming your authoritarian dreams.
2
@Bob-sx7iv Dangerous freedom is preferable to peaceful slavery.
2
@Bob-sx7iv I don't smoke crack, though I do believe that people should be able to smoke crack if they choose.
2
It is a right though. Having a right to do something doesn't imply that you should do it. Freedom of speech gives me the right to say tons of horrible things, but that doesn't mean I should. There's certainly no guarantee of defending yourself with a firearm, but it's a lot more realistic than defending yourself against a bunch of 250 pound guys using MMA.
2
No. It's effectively impossible to ban guns in the US.
2
@dexterity5809 I can pretty much guarantee you that will never happen, partly because of culture and partly because we can observe the advantages of guns. 2020 has been a wake up call for a lot of people, with record breaking gun sales and over 5 million new first time gun owners.
2
@dexterity5809 I disagree. The advantages of guns are way higher than the disadvantages. Default gun buying procedure: go to a gun store, pick out a gun, go through a federal background check (normally takes a few minutes, but can take longer), pay for gun, walk out with gun.
2
@dexterity5809 I mean exactly that: you are innocent of crimes until you have proven guilty of crimes. Saying that someone might do something in the future is not a valid reason to strip away their freedom.
2
There has been a ban on automatic weapons since 1986. They are basically never used in crimes.
2
@Bob-sx7iv I'm sure it's just a coincidence that tyrannical regimes disarm their political opponents at the very least, the population in general quite often.
2
A short barrel rifle is better for home defense than a pistol imo.
2
Anti-gun groups purposefully try to keep it that way. It's easier to push for restrictions when people don't understand the restrictions that already exist.
2
IssyFishyy I would agree that democracy isn't a good thing, but it's less evil than theocracy or monarchy. Liberalism keeps democracy limited for a good reason, but democracy of some form is the least bad option as long as we determine that government is needed to secure rights.
2
IssyFishyy There are a lot of problems there. Christians disagree with each other all the time, so I'm so sure about the rules being understandable, and where they are understandable they often violate rights. Plus there's the whole question of a god existing, and what right it would have to rule us even if it did.
2
IssyFishyy No.
2
IssyFishyy Well if you're talking about the US, roughly 35% of the population does not identify as any sort of Christian at all.
2
If you don't want to own guns that's entirely your preogative, no one will force you to. By the same token, if I want to own guns then that's my preogative.
2
Promoting responsible gun ownership is of course worthwhile, but government barriers are not acceptable. Would you ever consider psych evaluations or tests before "allowing" someone to exercise their free speech?
2
Plenty of people are safer, guns are used defensively pretty frequently.
2
@calamity2956 Your point is that you can be killed and you're fine with being helpless? Okey dokey.
2
It's a poorly kept secret that black americans tend to be culturally conservative, and of course the idea that an entire race of people is some sort of hive mind is just ridiculous. Individuals run the gamut on their views.
2
Why should I have my rights infringed upon because of your irrational fear?
2
There is nothing that could happen that would cause us to ban guns or implement Australian style gun control. That should be clear by now. If the gun control crowd could ever actually accept that, we could work on actual solutions like improving security in vulnerable areas.
2
Yes, it's certainly possible to be helpless victims. We don't want that.
2
@catarinagentil509 Yes, it is. The way to not be a victim is to be able to defend yourself.
2
If you want to try to convince people to give up guns voluntarily, then whatever, but if you try to forcibly take guns away you'll have a problem.
2
@Bob-sx7iv The Constitution doesn't prevent tyranny, people do. The Constitution doesn't take actions, it will never leap up and enforce itself. It is people who believe in or at least follow the Constitution that do that. I'm pretty sure that I've been over this with you before, but the Bill of Rights isn't granting rights, it's merely enumerating rights that we already have.
2
@clarence4946 And there's a large difference between 30 gun deaths a year and 200. You say this liberty doesn't exist, yet we have the liberty to keep and bear arms. As for what I am defending myself from, it's anything that seeks to take away my freedom, whether it be a common criminal or a tyrant.
2
Machine guns have been banned since 1986.
1
Which country do you live in?
1
@ryt25 Ireland absolutely has had mass shootings along with bombings.
1
@Bob-sx7iv We don't have the same culture today as they had in wild west towns either. Do you ever get tired of embarrassing yourself?
1
@Bob-sx7iv Yet you haven't banned guns successfully in the US. How interesting.
1
@Bob-sx7iv No, you won't. We absolutely won't let you.
1
@Bob-sx7iv We've been finding it out and we are continuing to find out right now. You goons can't even get universal background checks passed at the federal level and you think you're going to get a gun ban?
1
You can be victimized by criminals who don't have guns, and you've missed the fact that the police have guns. As a German, I would think you'd understand that the police aren't necessarily on your side.
1
@marilenawestermann8707 It's a part of liberty. Besides just the general liberty to own property, the right to self defense is inherent to all individuals and firearms are an effective tool for that purpose. Police are not always around, often responding after the crime is already over. You are ultimately responsible for your own safety.
1
@marilenawestermann8707 Whether I agree with that or not is irrelevant. Using collective safety as an excuse to infringe upon individual liberty and the ability to defend oneself is invalid.
1
@marilenawestermann8707 Statistics will not save you if someone breaks down your door in the middle of the night and attacks you. Statistics will not save you if your government becomes tyrannical and decides you should be exterminated. A firearm just might.
1
Because they are put into literal warzones? What sort of bad faith question is that?
1
@Bob-sx7iv Which is true whether it is at a gun show or the parking lot of a Walmart. There is nothing special about gun shows, hence why the gun show loophole is a lie
1
@Bob-sx7iv It can happen anywhere. Gun control lobbyists call it the "gun show loophole" to make it sound scary and mislead people.
1
@Bob-sx7iv I wouldn't say they are ubiquitous, but they observably occur. Violent criminals exist. They aren't make believe.
1
Let me know when you've destroyed the government's guns.
1
@gracel4587 Australia didn't ban all guns, much less destroy them all, and there have been mass shootings there by the standards groups use in the US.
1
They don't use civilian AR-15s in the military.
1
@NogabaHD Legal fully automatics are basically never used in crimes. Production of new ones for civilians is banned, with the old ones that got grandfathered in being extremely expensive and federally registered.
1
The gun control lobby that pushes that narrative knows, they just don't care. They rely on deception to try to get their agenda through.
1
No. The people of the US will never allow that.
1
You would still need guns to protect you from people without guns, and the infinity stones don't exist. Guns do exist and they aren't going away.
1
@Bob-sx7iv I'd rather be cringe than a tyrant.
1
Besides the added expense? So-called smart guns are prone to failure and aren't hard to bypass if that's your intention.
1
@justgotravel6646 Automatic rifles have been banned for decades. What is produced for the civilian market are semi-automatics.
1
@justgotravel6646 You could absolutely make a firearm with GPS in it, but it wouldn't accomplish anything except adding a point of failure.
1
@justgotravel6646 Semi-automatics are optimal for protection. The majority of firearms purchased for self-defense are semi-automatic.
1
@justgotravel6646 They basically don't. Even non-lethal options like pepper spray are banned in some of these countries, so they're simply victimized.
1
@justgotravel6646 It's almost like an armed society is a polite society. I can tell you that it works the other way around as well: if you carry a gun you want to avoid arguments and fights because you don't want it to escalate. I haven't been to 80 countries, but I have been to several in Europe. Being basically helpless is not a good feeling.
1
Chuckles in US
1
@alix9751 I had to do a spit take when I read that. You are delusional if you think you are safe.
1
@alix9751 I am safer than you, because I have a gun.
1
@alix9751 It's difficult for a mad man to shoot me if I shoot them first. You have fun trying to stop a criminal that got a gun on the black market... or even just a criminal without a gun who happens to be bigger and stronger than you. Considering all the conditioning that is going on in public schools these days, homeschooling sounds like a good idea anyway.
1
It is a right though.
1
@MYRD-ew6oi Trump banned bump stocks and didn't get the ATF under control. Some supporter.
1
"it's been 24 years since our last mass shooting" False.
1
@dexterity5809 First you would need to amend the Constitution to make it possible, which wouldn't happen, and then you'd almost certainly start a civil war when you went to try to confiscate the hundreds of millions of guns in private hands.
1
@dexterity5809 Correct. We don't base laws on weird pre-crime reasoning. You are innocent until proven guilty.
1
Depends on what you mean by liberal. Classical liberals can be very pro-gun. Modern liberals on the other hand lost the plot long ago.
1
Only looking at violence related to guns is the wrong metric to use, and yes, liberty is more important than statistics.
1
@noequintin8692 The metric that you would use is overall violent crime. If you decrease gun violence but cause an increase in other forms of violence, then what exactly have you accomplished? Do not confuse liberty with freedom. It is justified to limit the freedom to violate the rights of others, such limitation is necessary to actually have liberty. It has nothing to do with majority or minority, a majority murdering or enslaving a minority would still be unjust. In that light, the mere act of owning a firearm does not violate anyone's rights and they can observably be used without violating anyone's rights. Of course, if you use them to commit murder etc. then you can be held accountable for your actions, but taking away firearms from those who have done no wrong is unjust. The root of the issue isn't guns. Guns very rarely cause injury all on their own, they have to operated by someone. The root of the issue is why people commit acts of violence against others in the first place.
1
@noequintin8692 You address the conditions that contribute to violent behavior, like socioeconomic status and mental health. People who are able to make a decent living through lawful employment are less likely to engage in violent behavior. People who are able to get the treatment they actually need instead of just being given some pills or tossed into prison are less likely to engage in violent behavior. There is much to be done to address the actual causes of violence rather than simply trying to treat the symptoms.
1
@noequintin8692 Except in this case treating the symptoms isn't just somebody voluntarily taking a pain reliever, it's the government forcibly curtailing the liberty of innocent people. That's not acceptable policy.
1
Right, because guns are totally useless against knives, bats, and fists.
1
@natl5692 In America: you have a gun (and maybe the other guy has a gun too), so you don't get into a fight in the first place because you don't want people getting shot.
1
@natl5692 It's called polite society: adults use their words, animals use their fists.
1
@natl5692 Your personal ignorance of violent crime in your country doesn't make you safer.
1
@natl5692 Wishful thinking doesn't make violence cease to exist and depriving individuals of the ability to defend themselves in the name of a greater good is deeply immoral.
1
@Tomb-Wraith Which has nothing to do with it being a gun show.
1
@Tomb-Wraith That's my point. It being a gun show is irrelevant. Whether it's at a gun show or in a Mcdonald's parking lot, private sellers don't have to do background checks.
1
You live in a bad state then. I can order ammo online and I can get a firearm same day after a background check / showing my carry license.
1
By infringing on basic rights of the individual.
1
If by "work" you mean indoctrinating the population into being totally helpless and dependant upon the state.
1
Yes. What other right requires a psychological check before you can exercise it?
1
@Bob-sx7iv The TSA is a joke. It's just security theater.
1
Except we know that's a lie. People pushing for gun control are on record as wanting to take guns away and we observe that it's exactly what happens in other countries.
1
The reality is that people do have guns though. Soldiers have guns, police have guns, and citizens need to be allowed to have guns too. If you get militaries and police forces to disarm, then I'll consider it.
1
Do you grasp that the United States is not Denmark? Do you understand that we don't want to be Denmark?
1
@MrCph2200 Did Denmark have over 390 million firearms, most of them unregistered? Did Denmark have a long history of firearms being analogous to liberty, dating back to before the founding of the country? Did Denmark have a Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms since the founding of the country? The United States is not Denmark. Thanks for your input, but we aren't going to be making guns illegal any time soon.
1
@rtfgx Other countries aren't safer without guns, they're protected by armed militaries. Individuals who are disarmed often find themselves victimized in these countries.
1
@liamhanna641 The supply of guns is way higher in the US than it ever was in Australia, and selling a gun on the black market doesn't destroy it. Obviously the buyer wants it badly enough to be willing to break the law to get it for some reason.
1
That's not terribly relevant to the claim that the individual is rendered less able to defend themselves. You might be able to say that the public in general is safer, but statistics are of no use to the individual who is being victimized.
1
Jo Jorgensen is the actual pro-gun candidate. Not only should there not be new restrictions, we need to roll back existing restrictions and abolish the ATF.
1
Eye Patch Guy Nonsense.
1
Gary Winthorp I'm not sure who "he" is supposed to refer to there, but in general I don't actually see agorism and partyarchy as incompatible. You can work towards delegitimizing unjust laws and institutions while also working to put people into government who recognize those laws and institutions as unjust.
1
Wait... so removing restrictions on citizens, not enforcing their will on the people... makes them intoxicated with power? What?
1
@monsterman4496 "though the majority of people (sane ones) agree that SOME restrictions on guns makes sense" Were the politicians in Texas not democratically elected? In any case, inflicting majoritarian rule onto people is enforcing your will onto the minority. If you don't want to carry a gun, no one is forcing you to. It's totally your decision. "Those things that are "imposed on your freedom" (wah) save lives." So infringing on freedom in order to save lives is a just thing to do according to you? Are there any limits to that? If people decided it would save lives to do away with things like presumption of innocence and due process, would you support it? That you can't make an argument without resorting to childish rhetoric says a lot about you.
1
Robbers tend to decide that they'd rather be somewhere else when confronted by an armed homeowner. Can it lead to more injuries? Sure, but the alternative can lead to more robberies like we see in the UK where robbing someone carries very little risk for the criminal.
1
There's a difference between aggressive violence and defensive violence. You can not like violence yet realize the necessity of it: wishful thinking is not going to save you from the person trying to beat you to death.
1
@Tomb-Wraith Because gun control groups intentionally push that false narrative to deceive people into supporting their agenda. "Gun show loophole" sounds scarier than just "private sale."
1
@catarinagentil509 There's not proof that there's another way. People in Europe just accept that some people are going to be sacrifices for the 'greater good.' That's not acceptable.
1
@catarinagentil509 Okay, show me the country where no one is ever victimized. I'd love to see that data. I live in a society where most anyone can get a gun and I don't live in constant fear. The only way to completely safeguard people's lives is with a totalitarian state and zero freedom. You have to decide which is primary: liberty or life.
1
@catarinagentil509 I agree that there are countries to study and learn from. I've learned what to never, ever allow the government to start doing. You seem to have a hard time with the idea that I'm not really interested in statistical safety. Statistics will not save you when someone breaks through your door in the middle of the night and sexually assaults you before beating you to death. Statistics will not save you when the government decides that you are degenerate and should be exterminated. A firearm just might. A middle ground between liberty and totalitarianism is not acceptable. The idea that the middle of two positions must be the best is a fallacy. If I say there shouldn't be any genocide and someone else says there should be genocide, would you advocate for a half genocide?
1
@catarinagentil509 "How can you say you don't care about statistical safety?" Exactly the way that I did. "If you know that when guns are allowed 500 people die (for example) and when guns are not allowed 10 people die, are you really just going to ignore that?" I fundamentally reject the idea of infringing on individual liberty for collective safety. "Are you really just going to care about your safety?" No. I care about safety, just not at the expense of liberty. Not just my own liberty, but everyone's. "Also, there are a lot of different ways to protect yourself besides using a fire gun, non-lethal ways." There are, but they aren't as effective. I personally carry pepper spray in addition to a pistol so I have an option between harsh language and lethal force. "thinking in extremes like you're doing is the biggest fallacy here" It's not. Either your position is principled or it isn't. That's simply true. If you accept that sacrificing liberty for security is justified, then you have no ground to stand on when someone argues that further sacrifices would lead to more security. "The middle ground here is called society" Yes, in society we give up the "freedom" to infringe on the rights of others. That's it though. Restrictions not directly following from that are immoral. "Everyone in a society knows a genocide isn't acceptable" That's false. There are people in society that actively advocate for genocide and even more who believe in it but hide that belief. Fascists are very much real.
1
Let me know when you've gotten all the guns away from criminals, military, and police. Then I'll consider it.
1
It's called concealed carry. If you saw me in public, you likely wouldn't even know that l'm armed. The rest of what you said basically assumes that the only legitimate use of firearms is hunting, which is an opinion you can have but most people in the US aren't going to share.
1
@zynet_eseled Well you can have your opinion, but as a Canadian your opinion isn't relevant to US policy.
1
@Bob-sx7iv Other places have had constitutions and laws yet failed to prevent tyranny, because the people there failed to uphold those laws. Laws don't enforce themselves. If the President or some military general were to declare that Congress is now dissolved and martial law is in place, the Constitution will not spring forth from the National Archives and stop them.
1
@Bob-sx7iv It fundamentally doesn't matter "dude." There is no such thing as a constitution which can guarantee that tyranny never happens. At a basic level, constitutions only work if they are supported by people. How are you not grasping this?
1
@Bob-sx7iv "the people understand it and challenge it and have faith in it" Like I've been saying, it's the people. It is fundamentally people which stop tyranny. A constitution which no one believes in and defends is just ink on parchment. "that you think gives you gun rights" Nope, I have the right to keep and bear arms by human nature. The second amendment is simply enumerating that right and explicitly prohibiting the government from infringing upon that right. "youre so offended" Your ignorance doesn't offend me. It makes me laugh at you, but it doesn't offend me.
1
@Bob-sx7iv Do you think that people who don't own guns automatically side with you on the notion that guns should be banned? If so, you're a fool. As for "resisting lawful government orders", you do understand that the United States was literally founded through revolution, right? Unjust laws are to be resisted. If the government proves itself to be despotic, then it is to be altered or abolished.
1
@Bob-sx7iv No, I don't think that. I know for a fact that there are people who own guns who are actively against gun rights. But then, I'm not a buffoon like you.
1