(cache) tostilocosがMan braces AR-15 with his noseについて記入したコメント

Rules		Description
1. No Politics		Political videos—including content relating to social issues which have a clear political element—should be submitted to /r/PoliticalVideo. This includes submissions of current or recent political figures in any context, satire/political-comedy, and posts on political topics from within the last 10 years.
2. No Personal Information		Such as names, Facebook pages, phone numbers, addresses, etc. This can also include contact information of public officials or groups (see rule 3). This is grounds for an immediate (and likely permanent) ban, so consider this a warning.
3. No Witch-Hunting		Or incitement to witch-hunt. This means no demanding "Reddit Justice" in any way in post titles or comments. This also includes posting contact information of public officials or groups in an any manner that could be seen as an attempt to get users to contact them.
4. No Videos of Police Brutality or Police Harassment		Consider submitting those to a different subreddit, like /r/Bad_Cop_No_Donut or elsewhere.
5. Submit Direct Link to Video		No web pages that only embed Youtube or Vimeo videos. No URL shorteners. No links to playlists or to channel pages.
6. No Porn or Gore		There are many other subreddits for such content.
7. No Solicitation of Votes or Views. No Asking for Votes or Sharing Submission Links On or Off-Site (Facebook, Twitter, etc.)		Violations can lead to a permanent ban of accounts and video channels.
8. No Hate Speech		You are free to offer your opinion respectfully, but comments or posts intended to demean a group, acontextual expressions of bigotry, and the pejorative use of slurs is disallowed.
9. No Videos of Real-Life, Malicious Person-On-Person Assault/Battery or Physical Abuse of Animals		This includes raw videos of fights.
10. No Third Party Licensing		No videos that are licensed by a third party. Videos that become licensed after they are posted will be removed. Please see this thread for a more detailed explanation.

[–]nate800 18ポイント19ポイント20ポイント 3時間前 (18子コメント)

[–]godiebiel 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 2時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]Wolfgang7990 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 2時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]Unggoy_Soldier [スコア非表示] 39分前 (0子コメント)

[–]Draffut_ [スコア非表示] 26分前 (0子コメント)

[–]Perpetual_Rage 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 2時間前 (12子コメント)

[–]coachmuschamp 6ポイント7ポイント8ポイント 2時間前 (7子コメント)

[–]Condhor 4ポイント5ポイント6ポイント 1時間前 (3子コメント)

[–]pieter91 [スコア非表示] 1時間前 (2子コメント)

[–]Condhor [スコア非表示] 55分前 (1子コメント)

[–]pieter91 [スコア非表示] 5分前 (0子コメント)

Okay, I see where we disagree.

I understand the frustration you have with people talking about restricting gun ownership. If I were allowed to buy a gun here, and I did, and I used it for sport, I'd also feel like I was being blamed for something I had nothing to do with when they came to take it away from me.

But here's the thing: Most Americans don't agree with taking away all privately owned firearms. They just want stricter checks on who gets to own them in the future. If you take that as an affront to your freedom and react too fiercely, you're hindering the debate on how to better enforce existing laws and what new legislation to introduce.

Now for your point about defending yourself by carrying your rifle in public places. It's really about the chicken and the egg:

From my perspective: Do you think I wish I could carry a weapon here in the Netherlands to protect myself from terrorists? No, I don't. You might think it's because I'm scared of them, or that I trust the police to protect people, but really it's because I'd be scared of other gun owners. Who knows what might be going through their heads at any time. I can't imagine trusting other people like that. I can trust the police to handle their firearms properly, but that's it.

In the US, almost anyone is allowed to have a gun. And weapons leaking from the legal market find their way to the black market. This means that there's a much bigger chance a criminal or a mentally unstable person has a gun. And I understand your first reflex being to grab your own gun. But that's not fighting the cause. You should be worried about how to make sure firearms are kept where they can be enjoyed, while minimising the risks of them getting into the wrong hands. This could include more stringent background checks, closing loopholes, making sure second hand sale is regulated, mandatory recertification (like a driver's licence, are people who go blind allowed to drive).

And for your joke about the sports car, I'll address that briefly because I think you're being serious: While sports cars certainly have the potential of hurting a lot of people, it doesn't compare. Cars aren't as easy to use to kill large numbers of people. They certainly aren't build to do so. And as for the differences regarding people who own them suddenly using them violently: Sports cars are not as easily kept hidden. They also have to be driven on roads where certain rules apply. If you don't follow those rules, there are consequences. You also require a driver's licence to operate any car, and there are certain situations where it won't be renewed. All of these last point can help prevent people from misusing their property.

[–]pieter91 [スコア非表示] 54分前 (1子コメント)

I thought most people in the US were in favour of legislation that would make sure people who wanted to buy guns would have to pass a background check. I didn't think anyone was really suggesting no one would be allowed a gun anymore.

I think the reasoning is that people who want a gun for peaceful reasons won't mind waiting for a background check, while criminals would not pass one. If this is combined with stricter control over the black market, you would hopefully significantly reduce guns falling into the hands of criminals and terrorists.

If you ask me personally, I understand that people enjoy shooting recreationally and for hunting, I really do. But to me it would make sense to take a few precautions to limit firearm use to those areas. You could limit the number of firearms people have lying around their houses waiting to be used accidentally, or get stolen, maybe by having them stored professionally, to be checked out when you want to. You could also make certain types of weapons (ones that are unnecessary for hunting) only allowed at gun ranges. This would further limit the availability of things like assault rifles to the wrong people.

[–]speedisavirus [スコア非表示] 34分前 (0子コメント)

[–]caninehere [スコア非表示] 58分前* (0子コメント)

The freedom to own a weapon that serves no real purpose other than killing other human beings is a freedom I'd be happy to let lapse.

I 100% believe that guns should be legally available for purchase, but there's no justifiable reason I can think of that semi-automatic rifles should be available for purchase - not just the AR-15s the media loves to villify, but ANY semi-automatic rifle. And as /u/nate800 points out, handguns may have been the weapon used most often by the shooter in this instance - well, why are handguns available to all?

I live in Canada, and you can buy plenty of semi-automatic rifles here too, but there's absolute no reason for them to be available other than "well, I think they're fun". In Ontario at least I believe that semi-automatic rifles can only have a maximum 5-bullet magazine, though; there are many places in the US where you can legally buy a 100-round drum.

At the very least we have handguns in our 'restricted' class, so they're rather difficult to buy and handle legal here, which means relatively few people own them. Are there illegal handguns around? Absolutely, but at least we're not proliferating them on top of that with legal handguns too.

Take semi-automatic rifles and handguns off the market. If people want to hunt, or protect a rural property from wild animals, I have absolutely no problem with that - but why can't they use a bolt-action rifle, or a shotgun, as most people here in Canada do?

[–]StrikingCrayon 3ポイント4ポイント5ポイント 2時間前* (1子コメント)

I think his argument is that evil people will do evil things so 'it's not worth focusing on what may only be a trivial hindrances'. I'm Canadian so I'm not going to speak on gun control in the US directly. It confuses the shit out of me and only causes more questions to go on top of questions I'll start off with. I'm just going to point out that the vast majority of nations have a history of policing symptoms rather than the diseases. People want things to be simple and almost nothing in the entire world is even close to simple. Everyone wants to be sure they have their sound byte answer. In most modern arguments both sides have some facts and points that are completely right, and completely wrong.

Does restricting guns make it harder for people to kill people with guns?
Is it worth the inconvenience to some for the lives it could or could not save?
Do we even, as a people care about keeping people alive or do we just care about feeling safe?

The questions go on and on and it doesnt look like /u/nate800 was making an arguement. Just making a point.

You can't legistlate morality and goodness directly.

[–]pieter91 [スコア非表示] 52分前 (0子コメント)

[–]poopbandit [スコア非表示] 35分前 (0子コメント)

[–]iggyfenton -4ポイント-3ポイント-2ポイント 2時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]TheLastSparten 13ポイント14ポイント15ポイント 2時間前 (19子コメント)

[–]way2lazy2care 14ポイント15ポイント16ポイント 1時間前 (10子コメント)

[–]MattGorilla [スコア非表示] 33分前 (0子コメント)

[–]KinArt [スコア非表示] 55分前* (8子コメント)

[–]evilcorn9 [スコア非表示] 38分前 (4子コメント)

[–]KinArt [スコア非表示] 33分前 (3子コメント)

[–]evilcorn9 [スコア非表示] 22分前 (1子コメント)

[–]KinArt [スコア非表示] 21分前 (0子コメント)

[–]Southpaw_xi [スコア非表示] 17分前 (0子コメント)

[–]speedisavirus [スコア非表示] 28分前 (2子コメント)

[–]KinArt [スコア非表示] 24分前 (0子コメント)

[–]ddidiodion [スコア非表示] 24分前 (0子コメント)

[–]Key_nine 9ポイント10ポイント11ポイント 1時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]TheKittenConspiracy [スコア非表示] 48分前 (0子コメント)

[–]MyNameIsntGerald 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 1時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]aquoad [スコア非表示] 23分前 (0子コメント)

[–]DuosTesticulosHabet [スコア非表示] 16分前 (0子コメント)

Because TERRORism. If their political motivation is to instill fear in a populace (i.e. terrorize), they're much more likely to do it with guns. If you couldn't tell by the current media shitstorm, a lot of people are afraid of guns in America. Mostly due to fear mongering by the news. Every time there's any mass shooting, the news will go on for weeks, 24/7 dissecting every bit of new information to uncover motivations and agendas. Even the president inevitably gets dragged into the talks.

Having a mass killing with guns is much more likely to spark media attention, get the message out, and aid in their success at being terrorists. It gets their names and agendas out there. It gets politicians talking about changing laws.

If someone managed to kill a bunch of people with a car, it would make the news for sure but it wouldn't quite hit the same note as a mass shooting. People aren't afraid of cars. I don't think it would get nearly as many people concerned or talking. Now a car bomb is a much more likely scenario that would achieve a lot of the same goals as a mass shooting.

Guns are also just a quicker way to kill en masse, to be honest. Plowing through a crowd in your sedan is probably a lot more effective in concept than in reality.

[–]Grassyfilth [スコア非表示] 3分前 (0子コメント)

[–]Ivanka4President -1ポイント0ポイント1ポイント 1時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]sdljhk 4ポイント5ポイント6ポイント 2時間前 (8子コメント)

What can you do with a rifle that you can't effectively do with a $800 car

Kill more than a handful of people. Yes, in countries where guns are hard to get people actually do such things. Fortunately the people in these countries it's not possible to run through a crowd of people. Cars can go fast, but they don't have a lot of traction. E.g. a horse should be strong enough to pull a car that accelerates in the opposite direction. Hence, when these maniacs start run in a crowd they tend to come to a stop quite immediately. Yes, typically a few people die, but that's it.

Some cases for reference (fatalities excluding the attacker):

Las Vegas, one fatality

Rampage with a self made tank, no fatalities

Rampage with a National Guard tank, no fatalities

Bullodzer attack in Israel, 3 fatalities

All in all guns (and well made bombs) are the only 'reliable' way to get the number of dead victims in the double digits. I could go on with this list of cases for ages. There are countless other cases where the attacker couldn't a 'real' gun, used something else and hence didn't manage to kill anyone.

I also want to add that running a car into a crowd is typically quite hard. Most big crowds are in areas where traffic is restricted. Even if there's no physical barrier, there's usually police at big events so any attacker with a car can expect to get shot immediately. Apart from that, dodging a car is typically easier than dodging a bullet.

[–]HindleMcCrindleberry 3ポイント4ポイント5ポイント 2時間前 (4子コメント)

[–]ManOfDrinks [スコア非表示] 1時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]pieter91 [スコア非表示] 37分前 (0子コメント)

[–]sdljhk [スコア非表示] 1時間前 (1子コメント)

Hm. My grandfather was a farmer in his youth and often tells this. And I actually think he's right about it. The point isn't that a car weren't stronger (a horse has a horse power of up to 14.9 for a short time), so more than one would think, but still much less than a car.

The thing where a horse should win is traction. It's a bit questionable whether this works on a normal road, where the ground is made for cars (and I think my grandfather is means on muddy field) but the grip cars have is quite limited. Just try get up a 45° slope with a car. Given that Daimler is making a big fuss about one of their SUVs being able to do that and that the world's steepest roads are only at 37.5%=21° most cars should fail at much less. On a 45° slope the car is pulled down with roughly 70% of its weight. On a 20° slope - where I imagine the limit for a normal car is - it's roughly 34%. So a 1.5ton car probably can't pull more than 500kg. Given my personal experience with slopes (I can climb 45°) I'm quite sure the horse wins.

[–]HindleMcCrindleberry [スコア非表示] 46分前* (0子コメント)

[–]AHomelessWalrus [スコア非表示] 1時間前 (2子コメント)

Your points made are fair enough, but I remain unconvinced any restrictions on the supply of firearms would make any noticeable difference in the death tolls in the (still considerably rare) mass shooting sprees of late. A shooting the likes of which was seen in Orlando could be realistically committed with any repeating firearm (pump-action shotgun, lever rifle, semi-automatic military surplus weapon like an M1 Garand or SKS). Short of a blanket confiscation of the 300-some million firearms in the United States, which is a non-starter for a whole multitude of cultural and logistical reasons, I'm not sure what can be done with firearms to rectify to situation. I continue to champion an improvement in our attention to mental health and a focus on improving the socio-economic status of our most at risk citizen's (a super-majority of gun crime is committed in areas of low socio-economic status, mind you) to help remedy the situation to the greatest extent possible.

[–]sdljhk [スコア非表示] 46分前 (1子コメント)

I'm not sure what can be done with firearms to rectify to situation.

Yeah, if you want to get the same level of restriction as in Western Europe (and even here roughly half the wannabe spree killers get their guns) you'll need decades. That said, most European countries only banned guns a few decades ago and there are still millions of old rifles sitting around in attics and few of these guns are ever used in crimes. As far as I've heart ammunition isn't very reliable when it's a few decades old, so banning appears to solve most of the problems in the (ver) long term.

In the short term you're probably right, that banning guns won't help much (and never go through politically). But I think background checks and the like could help. Maybe combine that with mandatory safety training and a psychological evaluation. Sure, a criminal mastermind won't be stopped by that, but it would make guns harder to get for the average criminal/terrorist.

And yes, you're right. Mental health and inequality are probably the main reasons for the high homicide rates in the US. IIrc the US would still have a higher murder rate than many European countries if only non-firearm murders were counted.

[–]evilcorn9 [スコア非表示] 24分前 (0子コメント)

[–]VermiciousKnidzz 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 2時間前 (2子コメント)

[–]pleep13 [スコア非表示] 1時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]ddidiodion [スコア非表示] 22分前 (0子コメント)

[–]TrumpyMcTrumpo 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 3時間前 (69子コメント)

[–]tostilocos 16ポイント17ポイント18ポイント 3時間前 (43子コメント)

[–]Sneet1 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 2時間前 (3子コメント)

[–]ACBrownie 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 1時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]pleep13 [スコア非表示] 1時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]pieter91 [スコア非表示] 46分前 (0子コメント)

[–]DwightKashrut 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 1時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]FartasticBlast [スコア非表示] 1時間前 (0子コメント)

[+]TrumpyMcTrumpo スコアが基準値未満のコメント-11ポイント-10ポイント-9ポイント 3時間前 (35子コメント)

[–]Space_Cadet_1983 13ポイント14ポイント15ポイント 3時間前 (23子コメント)

[+]Perpetual_Rage スコアが基準値未満のコメント-6ポイント-5ポイント-4ポイント 2時間前 (22子コメント)

[–]Kerpeth 5ポイント6ポイント7ポイント 2時間前 (6子コメント)

[–]Perpetual_Rage 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 2時間前 (5子コメント)

[–]Kerpeth -1ポイント0ポイント1ポイント 2時間前 (4子コメント)

[–]Perpetual_Rage -3ポイント-2ポイント-1ポイント 2時間前 (3子コメント)

このスレッドの続きを見る

[–]squanchy_af 6ポイント7ポイント8ポイント 2時間前* (0子コメント)

[–]Space_Cadet_1983 7ポイント8ポイント9ポイント 2時間前 (13子コメント)

[–]Perpetual_Rage -2ポイント-1ポイント0ポイント 2時間前 (12子コメント)

[–]Space_Cadet_1983 8ポイント9ポイント10ポイント 1時間前 (11子コメント)

[–]JakeZachJeff1 [スコア非表示] 53分前 (9子コメント)

このスレッドの続きを見る

[–]Aremnant 5ポイント6ポイント7ポイント 3時間前 (10子コメント)

[+]TrumpyMcTrumpo スコアが基準値未満のコメント-10ポイント-9ポイント-8ポイント 3時間前 (7子コメント)

[–]Aremnant 5ポイント6ポイント7ポイント 3時間前 (5子コメント)

[+]TrumpyMcTrumpo スコアが基準値未満のコメント-9ポイント-8ポイント-7ポイント 3時間前 (4子コメント)

[–]FanofWhiskey 4ポイント5ポイント6ポイント 2時間前 (2子コメント)

[–]TrumpyMcTrumpo 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 2時間前 (1子コメント)

このスレッドの続きを見る

[–]Aremnant 3ポイント4ポイント5ポイント 2時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]grizzlingly [スコア非表示] 31分前 (0子コメント)

[–]coreanavenger [スコア非表示] 55分前 (1子コメント)

[–]Aremnant [スコア非表示] 50分前 (0子コメント)

[–]Instantcoffees [スコア非表示] 1時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]speedisavirus [スコア非表示] 43分前 (0子コメント)

[–]TheTexasWarrior -2ポイント-1ポイント0ポイント 3時間前 (23子コメント)

[–]TrumpyMcTrumpo -1ポイント0ポイント1ポイント 3時間前 (11子コメント)

[–]godiebiel 3ポイント4ポイント5ポイント 2時間前 (3子コメント)

[–]TrumpyMcTrumpo -1ポイント0ポイント1ポイント 2時間前 (2子コメント)

[–]godiebiel 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 2時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]TrumpyMcTrumpo -2ポイント-1ポイント0ポイント 2時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]ElmoTheRapist 6ポイント7ポイント8ポイント 3時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]TheTexasWarrior 3ポイント4ポイント5ポイント 3時間前 (4子コメント)

[–]TrumpyMcTrumpo -3ポイント-2ポイント-1ポイント 3時間前 (3子コメント)

[–]porsche911king 6ポイント7ポイント8ポイント 2時間前 (1子コメント)

[+]TrumpyMcTrumpo スコアが基準値未満のコメント-8ポイント-7ポイント-6ポイント 2時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]TheTexasWarrior 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 2時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]Space_Cadet_1983 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 3時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]iggyfenton -2ポイント-1ポイント0ポイント 2時間前 (10子コメント)

[–]TheTexasWarrior 5ポイント6ポイント7ポイント 2時間前 (9子コメント)

[–]iggyfenton 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 2時間前 (8子コメント)

[–]Jarod1231 [スコア非表示] 1時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]TheTexasWarrior 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 1時間前* (5子コメント)

[–]iggyfenton 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 1時間前 (4子コメント)

[–]TheTexasWarrior 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 1時間前 (3子コメント)

[–]iggyfenton -1ポイント0ポイント1ポイント 1時間前 (2子コメント)

このスレッドの続きを見る

[–]jmd_forest [スコア非表示] 16分前 (0子コメント)

[–]Chris_Hansen_AMA 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 1時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]FartasticBlast [スコア非表示] 1時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]ddidiodion [スコア非表示] 26分前 (0子コメント)

[–]whorecrusher 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 1時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]caninehere [スコア非表示] 1時間前* (0子コメント)

Well, for one, hitting someone at a car is less likely to kill them unless you do it at a high speed.

In addition to that, you can't just drive down a crowd of 100 people outside of a nightclub. After initially hitting the group, the force of impact would slow you down immensely. Now you could drive around hitting people one by one or two by two, but you'd have a hell of a time hitting 100 people before you got caught given the damage all that would do to your car.

Now maybe you could drive a really huge truck or an 18-wheeler through a crowd of 100 people, but as others have said... there's a reason these things haven't happened.

Not to mention that, to live the lifestyle we're forced to in North America, many people NEED access to a car. They cause accidents and kill a lot of people, that much is certain - but it's a necessary evil. The number of people who NEED guns is very, very, VERY small. And I'm all for hunting and such, but why are there states where you can buy a 100-round drum for a semi-automatic rifle - including, but definitely not limited to the AR-15?

And I do agree with the gun aficionados who bring up points like "why should the AR-15 be banned when there are dozens of other semi-automatic rifles that aren't" - but my answer to that is, why do you need semi-automatic rifles at all? Why aren't they ALL banned? If you want to go hunting, I have no problem with that, but you should be able to do just fine with a bolt-action rifle. Which, yes, can still kill people; but it's going to be pretty hard to kill 50 people with it in a short period of time.

videos

In-Depth Rule Explanation

Rules

調停者