Comments by "Seven Proxies" (@sevenproxies4255) on "I'm Going To AMERICA - Metatron In The USA" video.

Yeah, Italians always end up going as tourists to places originally discovered by Norsemen. :P
7
@blankrestore Well it makes some sense. Blades under a certain length can be concealed. And a lot of people carrying concealed weapons are often up to no good when doing so. Open carry is better and more honest.
3
STORM LORD But Lars Ragnarson is a cooler name by far. And I'm saying that as someone who actually bears the name "Christopher" IRL.
3
I don't mean to be a critic, but I would've prefered it if you went to visit some more historical locations pertaining to the American civil war and such. Perhaps looking up some reenactment groups and such. I get why you'd like to try out New York pizza, but as a viewer it sounds like a more "travel bloggy" type of content to me, when I primarily watch your videos for content about history, old arms and armour and such. Just my two cents.
2
@mickymaust2059 I'd say it's the opposite. With concealed carry, you'll have more situations where people pick fights with other people (like drunken brawls etc.) not realizing that some of them are packing. Guns will be pulled out in panic and people will get shot and killed in the heat of the moment, where the situation could've been resolved by a less harmful bout of fisticuffs. I'm not excusing drunken brawls or anything, i'm just saying that when they do happen (and they will, there's no stopping them) they tend to end with a bloody nose or a black eye in 90 percent of the cases, but both parties walk away alive after the altercation. But when there is a concealed firearm or knife involved, the risk of someone dying ramps up quite significantly. With open carry however, even most drunkards will be deterred from starting an altercation when there is a visible gun hanging from the hip of their intended target.
2
@mickymaust2059 : In your example though, it sounds more like you got killed because you were trying to play a hero to be honest. Just because you're carrying a gun, it doesn't mean you're responsible for stopping a robbery in progress. Most security and survival experts will teach the same thing: if an armed robber demands your wallet or whatever, just pullit out of your pocket, throw the wallet at the robber and run. While "stand your ground" laws might be principled, standing your ground in such altercations is rarely the most effective way of staying alive. In fact, standing ones ground actually increase the risk of serious injury and death in most instances, regardless if you're carrying a weapon openly or concealed. If there is an option to get out of the situation without pulling weapons and shooting, then that's what a person inclined towards personal security should opt for at all times. Gunfights are dangerous to everyone involved. They really should be the last resort when all other options are exhausted. And sure you can defend yourself. But pulling out a firearm and starting shooting during a drunken brawl is not proportional at all. It's like gunning down a 10 year old kid who snatched a candy bar from a store and ran without paying. The drunkard might violate the law, but killing them when it's not needed is a bit excessive.
2
@mickymaust2059 My pleasure. It was just a matter of philosophical differences. No reason for hostility in my view. In defense of loved ones, I'd consider that a "all other options have been exhausted"-type of situation. But with a store robbery, I'd probably wait and see what happens before pulling any weapons. If I got the sense that the robbers were going to corner me and kill me, then I'd have to fight my way out of the situation. But if all they're doing is telling the store clerk to empty the register in a bag, then that's not a situation worth risking my life for. The store clerk isn't being hurt by it, and the store itself is probably part of a large franchise and with insurance against robberies etc. So unless the robbers begin act in an unpredictable manner, i'd assume it safer to just lay low and wait for the robbers to leave and let the police deal with them.
2
@jamesroper4952 : All I have to say is that "Fair fights" is for losers. Winners of war, never fight "fair".
2
I agree. The whole "New England" area in general seems to be rife with historical sites.
1
@mickymaust2059 Yes, but people are drunk outside of establishments serving alcohol too. Most people don't end up in drunken brawls inside a bar ot club, but on the streets or in someones home. Yes, open carry is it draw attention. "I am armed. Mess with me and you do it at the risk of your own life" is the message. And it works.
1
@jamesroper4952 It was a new world for the people who travelled from Europe and discovered it. Just as Europe would've been a new world to native american explorers... If they had actually bothered to go out and explore that is.
1
@jamesroper4952 : But they did. They just didn't know about it. The reason being to be made aware of potential enemies on the outside, as well as trade and develop their technology through exports and imports, like the Europeans did. Had they done that, they might not have been such complete pushovers when the Conquistadors showed up with their superior military technology. If you don't go out in the world to fight new enemies, your warriors will never develop and evolve, and they will become ineffective at defending your home soil.
1
@jamesroper4952 : No, overpopulation was not the incentive for exploration. It wasn't even an issue back then because of plagues and wars that had culled the numbers of Europeans quite substantially at the time. The Americas was discovered by accident by Europeans who wanted to find new, and better trade routes by sea to asia. The american continent just happened to be in the way. The fact that diseases felled native americans so easily just goes to show the importance of exploration and interaction with other cultures. Being isolated for millennia leaves any population with a weak, over-specialized immune system, making new microbes and viruses inroduced that much more deadly. Also, the earliest Viking discoveries of Canada did not "run into natives" at all. There is no historical record of any interaction between them, because the areas where they landed were unpopulated for miles. Historical evidence suggests that they abandoned their settlements due to logistical reasons. Just as they did with some on iceland and greenland. Their expeditions were not nearly as large or well equipped as those of Columbus were, which is why they couldn't gain a foothold. Diseases or not, native americans didn't have much resistance to offer. Primitive weapons like spears, slings, bows and arrows can't really compete with guns and cannons.
1