I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as guns, is in fact, GNU/guns, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus guns
I do think he is being serious. From what I can tell and how these kinds of debates usually end up, he really meant what he said in this video. As an American, I can confirm this.
I'm a Canadian, and honestly I just can't understand the whole guns for self protection thing. I know very very few people that own a gun, and all of those that do own it for hunting purposes and usually live outside the big cities. I've never ever felt a need to have a gun in case of robbery or something...
@@sebnanchaster I, in spirit, agree with you, but you have to remember that you live in canada (and I do in russia); from what I hear, america can be very dangerous! especially considering that some bad people can have guns, so it's a catch 22 lol
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as guns, is in fact, ammo/guns, or as I've recently taken to calling it, ammo plus guns
@@Jumptohistory talk about talking about being trapped in political partisanship and then call accuse anybody who is anticommunist of being partisanly
@@suburbanyute340 this. my son's 3 so still pretty young but in a few years I'm going to take him out one day with grandpa & teach him how to shoot with a 10/22 or something
@@aemilianusmartinus5472 Yeah, I am not particularly bothered that he owns guns. I understand that in the US that is considered normal . . . In other places it would be considered pretty shocking, but whatever . . . I *am* bothered that he thinks I should own guns too. I am even more bothered that he thinks that they are somehow related to free software. This really is not the message free software advocates should be sending. I do not want to see free software associated with controversial politics or weaponry.
Guns make killing a lot of people very easy. A WordPress website... Not as easy. If more gun owners were responsible we wouldn't need to have this conversation. I'll admit you make great points, sadly not all owners are deserving of that right. When they flip a switch it's not a website that goes down it could be people... A lot of people.
@@zzco or the US could act like all the other developed nations. where I live we have (compared to the US) much stricter gun restrictions, much lower crime rates, milder sentences and our police doesn't have to kill as many people (only 10 on average per year per 80 million citizens).
I'm pretty sure all those guns have proprietary licenses, even the Vepr. I didn't see any ghost guns, possibly the AR, but even if you built it, likely it has some proprietary parts. You need open source guns. Mill your own parts, get a 3d printer and learn to be a gunsmith.
@@an93lofdeath there is a variety of non-lethal utils to choose from. maybe if the us wouldn't have such a wild gun law there would be less of a danger to be shot.
@panosid2000 The question of specific gun types aside, that is incorrect. Guns can defend you non-lethally. Compare with countries having nukes - MAD meant that the nukes wouldn't actually be used, nor kill anyone, they would prevent a fight from ever happening. Aside from that (slightly dodgy) comparison, also note that guns can kill animals. My native Sweden actually has a LOT of guns - in the hands of hunters. (And getting a hunting license isn't that difficult, assuming you don't have a criminal record.) If you have access to nature, and have some prepper tendencies, then having some hunting-capable rifles probably makes sense. (I couldn't be arsed, though. :P ) Where there's probably a good debate to be had is defining where a given type of gun is too dangerous to "count" - basically, how to not fall into the fallacy of someone having nuclear warheads to back up their "get off my lawn"... Basically, a weapon can be too dangerous to others through the risk of misuse/theft etc. Personally, I think certain US states err too far in the permissive direction, while countries like my native Sweden err too far in the restrictive direction.
I feel like a gun is just a tool id a poor analogy though, since it's a tool that is designed with the primary job of killing, whereas a hammer has uses like building and simply might be used to kill. Likewise, open software may be used unethically but it generally can't kill anyone regardless of the person behind the keyboard...
You started off pretty OK with talking about disagreeing with your party, but then went full partisan when calling states Free vs Communist Not a very good video because of that.
Unfortunately I live in one of those states he would refer to as communist. It may be an exaggeration, but it is bad. It’s like the Constitution doesn’t exist. The only thing standing between us and the fate of countries like Venezuela is that document.
In a scale of 1 to 10, that comment is an 11 on the funny scale. I got an ad the second he finished saying "this gun is great for children as well" at 6:46
Derek, I'm in the UK. It's a popular misconception that you can't own guns. You can own firearms in the UK. But they are heavily controlled, the regulations are very tight and you need to state your reason. Gun ownership is not something that many people in the UK do. This seems to work for us. But I get a great deal of enjoyment from channels like Hickok45, where there are responsible enthusiastic owners.
DT would define this restricted gun policies as Communism hahaha. So ... UK, now, is a Communist country. What the macarthism did at the USA ... They see "commies" in every place.
and this is a honest inquiry, not an attempt of an offense to someone, but since when is /not being a fully free and liberal state/ is considered communism? i am not in any way politically affiliated in ANY sense, this question just comes to mind coming from a country in south america (Argentina) where guns were never an option and we always get called communists because we have a reasonably "democratic" government, not in any sense actual communism, just not extremely liberal.
Calling other countries communist (when they are in fact not) is a bad habit that American society can't seem to lose since the era of cold war propaganda.
@@iMarimbaFTW no and dont give me the it wasnt real comunism bullshit now in practise party members where allowed to have a single firearm but this was quickly dropped
It's tongue in cheek. I've read Marx and Hegel so I know what communism actually is but I still call California a commie shithole when joking around at work.
By extension of that logic you could argue that everyone should have a nuclear bomb. You have to restrict the access to tools by their impact on society. Just like you wouldn't want everybody to have access root access on your machine as it would harm you a lot.
RANDOM NAME Not really. I am pointing out that there are flaws in dt's logic. You have to take the consequences of access to such tools into account and make policies accordingly. Comparing a hammer, free software and guns is literally apples and oranges. That is not to say that i am vilifying all guns. But rather that policies should be based on evidence and unbiased research.
You could argue that anyone should *be able to* have a nuclear bomb. Not everyone *should have them* but anyone *could buy one* if they have the money. But actually no, it's not by that logic. Nuclear weapons are higher class weapons that simple civilians are not allowed to have.
Soft waffle DT argues that a hammer could also be used to kill someone but that you have the freedom to buy a hammer. After explaining that freedom in free software does allow you to use the software in any way you want. So what is the point? That anybody should have the right to own any tool they want?
Ok, I'm a communist because I live in Germany where gun possession is very restricted. But I don't want to be a communist so I will move to the US. But wait a minute, there are those strange speed limits on freeways, which is a violation of human rights as everybody knows here in Germany. Are we all communists? I will ask my wife. She is Russian and should know.
@@jac1011 Bullshit. Commies just want to arm the revolutionaries. After that, only the Party members can own guns. In Soviet Russia, first thing Lenin did was to confiscate all guns. In Bulgaria, the first thing the Commies did after the coup of 1944 was to confiscate guns. East Germany banned guns. In Hungary, the commie government dissolved all gun clubs and disarmed everyone that wasn't loyal to the Party.
Just want to preface this comment by saying I have actually watched this video a few times cause I really want to make sure I understand your point of view and where you are coming from before I make a comment. I also want to say that while my comment is mainly going to be anti guns I am not going to make any arguments on what could/should be done about guns cause I admit I'm not an expert. With that out of the way... In response to your "guns are tools" point. I 100% agree that guns are just tools and people are the ones who decide what to do with that tool. However when people make this point they choose to only focus on comparing guns to other similarly dangerous tools and either avoid or fail to even consider the intended reasons the tools exist or why they were created in the first place. A car is an extremely dangerous tool that costs a lot of people their lives every day but the primary purpose of a car is to transport you from point A to point B. A hammer (as you used as an example in the video) is a tool for hammering nails into wood, hammer things into shape, and other things that don't involve trying to harm or kill someone. Guns were originally designed to be a weapon to inflict harm on humans or animals. While target practice is a thing a gun is still primarily designs to harm or kill living creatures. You CAN make the argument that it does nothing unless a person does something with it. But most people that buy guns do it so that if they need to defend themselves, their home, or their family, they can shoot it at someone. The number of people who buy a car so they can drive it into someone instead of to get from point A to point B, or who buy a hammer so they can bash someone's skull in instead of use it for construction is massively small compared to the number of gun owners who bought to hunt or defend themselves. If you take into account the reasons these tools exist and the primary reason people buy them the whole "a gun is a tool" argument really means absolutely nothing. To relate this back to free software there are many different things someone can make free software for. You can make a calculator, an image editor, a desktop environment, a streaming program. You can also make ransomware or piracy software designed solely to steal from specific sites / services. While I fully support the idea that software should not have licenses that restrict who can use the software or how it can be used, modified, or distributed I would still argue that perhaps some software shouldn't exist and we should try to regulate the spread of software solely designed to harm people or steal from them.
I like to see comments like these because it showp people that you care for the topica at hand and you looked into it for a little bit of time, for that everyone thanks you. Believe it or not your relation of guns to cars is correct in many ways but incorrect in few. As for example you said that mkre people buy guns to kill people instead of hunting or defending themselves. That is actually incorrect. The CDC had run a study on gun violence to deduce what people are buying their guns for. Over 3 million people have defended themselves in 2018 alone, that being compared to I think it was 100k people using it to kill another human being. Cars have killed more people than guns on a massive scale believe it or not.
Ian Hower my point was less about numbers or what is more dangerous and more about intent. Cars may be more dangerous but you don’t buy a car so you can inflict harm on another. You do buy a gun for that reason. Even if everyone is the ideal gun owner and no one actually wants to actually use it on a person, a lot of gun owners out there buy a gun so that they can feel safe knowing they could use it on someone if they have to. Whether guns kill more people or cars kill more people it doesn’t change the fact that only one of those items is actually designed to kill.
@Peter Andrijeczko Guns can and are collectors items and they can be fun to shoot. In Switzerland they have the highest gun ownership in Europe but hardly any deaths. You get to keep the gun but the ammo stays at the range you can clean mount and shoot your gun but with the proper precautions in place.
You've made a comparison at 4:38, but if you pick up a DVD with some software on it, and after that you take a katana, which object is more likely going to give you an urge to do something destructive? Well it depends on the software, of course, but my point is that when people say that guns kill people, they mean that guns were specifically designed for killing people.
actually most modern guns and ammo are designed to wound and not to kill but your example still requires intent if the intent is there the lack of legal capability to acces such an item is useless for the individual with such intent and only hinders tose without we can see this perfectly by looking at France belgium and germany
1) "which object is more likely going to give you an urge to do something destructive?" Yikes man. If _any_ object is capable of giving you an urge to be destructive, I'd suggest you seek mental assistance of some sort. 2) "my point is that when people say that guns kill people, they mean that guns were specifically designed for killing people." So? My guns have never killed anybody. Knives were made specifically to kill, but most people use them daily without killing anything. Similarly with guns - of all the guns in civilian hands in America, virtually 0 are used during a criminal act.
I am not a US citizen, I am European. I am not against but neither supporting the Second Amendment. I really support what DistroTube is doing, but this is video operates with several incomplete and false premises: - asks the rhetorical question "what exactly is ethical, or unethical?", then answers it: "well, it depends on who you ask. Its entirely subjective". --Now this is false. Fundamental ethics are not subjective - they are always deeply rooted in the historical and societal fabric of a nation/society. Mostly also deeply defined by religion. Ethics cannot vary by person. Even a lot of the US Constitution's amendments are based purely on ethical standpoints (e.g. 4th, 5th , 13th, 15th, etc). Ethics is not subjective, and in a society one simply cannot just come up with their own personal "subjective" ethical measures because without aligning that with the rest of the society it would risk the integrity of the society itself - The software analogy is also very misleading because of how it is introduced here as an argument: There are so many type of software and the MAJORITY is simply not capable of doing any harm, not to speak of fatal damage (Yes, there are indeed software that can directly cause fatal damage, but the Average Joes cannot simply walk into the "software store" and buy a "Freedom Software" and hack the life support system of a hospital and kill people - or hack communication systems and cause fatal aircraft crashes, etc). But guns are ONLY made for one thing - and that is doing life-threatening or fatal damage. Comparing open source software in general with guns sounds appealing but it is completely wrong - The hammer (and other tool) analogy was the worse: YES, there are a numerous tools that could be used for doing harm or killing someone: your hands, water, medication, a rope, a stone... There are so many, that I cannot even list the physical objects which because of their physical form or chemical attributes can be used for doing fatal damage to a living organism... but ALL THESE TOOLS and objects are created for a primary reason that is NOT doing harm or killing. In contrary, guns are ONLY made for this purpose. Why comparing these then? - he states: "I've noticed that many people in the free software community tend to identify as Liberals". I think I understand why this statement was made, but it is truly sad how intentionally vague the phrasing is and how it is too easy to project a false perception with this. The fact of thinking in silos "Liberals vs. Conservatives" is doing already too much of a harm not just in the US - I see the very same (and shameful) tendency in my home country Hungary where the major tone of the conversations are "Liberals vs. Right-wingers", and in which conversations too many of the participants do not even have a proper definition of what "liberalism" is or what "patriotism", "nationalism", or "conservatism" are... Antifa is a good (extreme) example: they are the same as fascists/neo-nazis, just with a different agenda. They use the same tool set, are totally ditching logical thinking and reasoning, etc. And finally - I am not discussing if gun rights are wrong, but I believe that we are so far away from a society that would be mature enough for bearing guns, that it is safer for the overall integrity of the society if people are first educated and assessed before having a licence to a gun. Free and open source software meant to make the world a better place through the free sharing of knowledge and inspiration of research and cooperation. Gun rights are not about building an open and free society - it is purely about that business in which the US is the first exporter in the world (then comes Russia, China, and France...). Here in Europe we have been through 2 World Wars, and people learned that it is NEVER the guns that solve the problems. I think (and this is my personal, subjective opinion) that the US needs much more of collective education, historical reflection, and a progressive approach to build a peaceful society - rather than let all civilians arm themselves and try to apply "eye for an eye" politics. It would be so much better to actually strive to achieve what open source software movement is meant for.
"Fundamental ethics are not subjective - they are always deeply rooted in the historical and societal fabric of a nation/society." What is considered "right" and "wrong" behavior is absolutely subjective - thus morals, and ethics, are also subjective. Here, let me help you out here: eth·ics /ˈeTHiks/ noun 1. moral principles that govern a person's behavior or the conducting of an activity. mor·al /ˈmôrəl/ adjective 1. concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character. "In contrary, guns are ONLY made for this purpose. " I, as well as _tens of millions_ of other Americans, must be using our guns improperly then.
@@Locke99GS @Locke99GS well, I guess you missed the point: copying the definition of ethics and moral without understanding the word "principles" in them was, I guess, a logical flaw. If "right" or "wrong" were subjective (which is true on an individual level but never on a societal level), mankind wouldn't ever created the institutions of law and jury. We couldn't ever make a court decision if people (societal groups) wouldn't agree on a MUTUAL definition of "right" and "wrong", which makes these agreements objective (to a certain extent, at least for a group of people that share the same legislation principles - usually a nation). Let ME help YOU out here: a samurai killing an other person of a lower class on the spot if that person made a big insult, was defined "right" by the commonly accepted definition of "kiri-sute gomen" in the feudal Japan. Now, this definition was outdated, and nobody is accepting such an act in the modern Japan, and such a killing (by anybody) is now defined "wrong". Not on a subjective level, but objectively by the society. And don't get me wrong: still, when it was right to kill this way, there might have been numerous individuals who probably defined it still as "wrong" on their subjective level, but the objective, society-wide definition was still "right", were not subjective, they were supported by an objective principle based on mutual agreement of the society of the given time and locus. I may assume you were trying (without actually doing it, because copying two definitions without adding your own arguments is hardly "doing") to discuss the universal philosophical question of "right" and "wrong", but in this case it is a bit weird to start discussing how subjective the two are by adding two objective definitions in which you simply ignore one part of the definition (I.e. "prinicple") and furthermore ignoring the context and meaning behind the definition. Speaking of what guns are made for: well, yes, although given the physical attributes of the objects you can use them as a hammer or paper weight, these are still only made for doing irreparable damage (in objects or organisms) by accelerating a projectile which collides with an other object. Of course, if you don't use it as intended (a.k.a. not operating it and not shooting) it can be used as a visual deterrence, but I would be really eager to see a real argument that explains the opposite - and please do not waste your time for an incomplete and false-premise-based attempt such as "using our guns in improperly then"... Maybe I misunderstood you, but I simply couldn't figure out what you were trying to suggest here. What are you using your gun for?
@@oumarh.gassama8063 Come on man. Now you're misunderstanding (or misrepresenting) "subjective" and "objective". Societal norms and mores don't make a thing objective. sub·jec·tive /səbˈjektiv/ adjective 1. based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. "his views are highly subjective" ob·jec·tive /əbˈjektiv/ adjective 1. (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. I use my guns primarily for target plinking and action pistol competition. Since you say guns are "ONLY made for one thing - and that is doing life-threatening or fatal damage" and I am not using them for that purpose, then I and so many of my peers must be using them incorrectly. The vast majority of guns in America have never shot a person or animal, and very few ever will. You've used and emphasized "ONLY" and "NEVER" in your original comment. It is hard to take seriously the ideas of somebody who fallaciously reduces things into monochotomies, then emphasizes that reduction. It is hard to take seriously the ideas of somebody who argues that the ideas if a society settles on an idea, that somehow that makes that idea an objective truth. You probably made other arguments from flawed premises, but I honestly stopped really reading your comment when I realized that you don't seem to care that words have definitions, or that those definitions aren't in line with your argument. Sorry man, but I can't take your arguments seriously.
@@Locke99GS so now you make some ad-hominem fallacies ("it's hard to take seriously the ideas of someone") and using it as an argument? You are right, I presented the two concepts incomplete and that was misleading. Objective is based on facts without the personal feelings - and that is where you misunderstood the concept: facts cannot be bent to match personal preferences. A rough example: The way a society works is a fact. Also, if the modus operandi of that society is unsustainable, is a fact. And the two facts can be simply controversial as they are facts of different layers of phenomena and processes: the given society works based on rules and the society flourishes, but for example destroys other societies. Both phenomena can be factual, and not enough to determine of any of those are "right" or "wrong" unless you inspect it from an ultimate holistic view. What if the "other" (destroyed) societies would have destroyed the habitat of the two? What if the society which destroyed the other would ultimately destroy the habitat?... which is wrong. My assumption: If you would indeed understand subjective and objective, right and wrong, you'd be advocating for resolving global energetical-, political- and overall societal issues, and not focus on changing gun laws... But please, try to prove me wrong with real logic if you wish. I agree with you that I was mistaken with saying that firearms are made for doing only damage to living things, that is why I was then adding that also objects are involved. Yes, there are shooting competitions, I am aware of that, but bringing it up as people are indeed advocate to carry firearms (even open carry) because they want to go to shooting competitions sounds....well... flawed. Current restrictive gun laws were never a burden of organising and carrying out shooting competitions, etc. Current restrictive gun laws never were a hindering cause for people who wanted to get into the shooting sport. It's like: the fact that you have to pass tests and exams to get a driving license to drive a car or motorbikes is for everyone else's safety so you can operate those objects in public, the same is for gun laws. Of course, if you use the guns in a safe and isolated location and environment (a.k.a. shooting/competition range) people won't care. But everyone would suddenly care if you bring your objects (that have inarguably primary lethal purposes) to public without any certifications. You also go with the ambiguity fallacy by saying "you probably made other fallacies but I stopped reading"... nice try, but an assumption is s not a fact or an argument. Anyway, enjoy your day, I was happy to exchange ideas, I learned from you and thank you for that! Stay safe and healthy!
@@oumarh.gassama8063 1) "so now you make some ad-hominem fallacies ("it's hard to take seriously the ideas of someone") and using it as an argument?" *sigh* That is not an ad hominem because it was not used as an argument, it was a statement. For instance, if I were to say "You're stupid", that is not an ad hominem because it is not arguing anything. It would be a simple statement. (Presumably an incorrect one - it is just an example) Now if I were to say "You're wrong because you're stupid", that would be an ad hominem because it is an argument. (Also just an example - I do _not_ think you're stupid). See here: ad ho·mi·nem /ˌad ˈhämənəm/ adjective (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining. ar·gu·ment /ˈärɡyəmənt/ noun a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong. state·ment /ˈstātmənt/ noun a definite or clear expression of something in speech or writing. 2) "You also go with the ambiguity fallacy by saying "you probably made other fallacies but I stopped reading"... nice try, but an assumption is s not a fact or an argument. " It was not an argument, again it was a statement. See above definitions to see the difference between arguments and statements. Have a great day, sir.
I don't live in the US but the major difference between a hammer and a gun is that a gun is made specifically to injure living organisms. Nothing to be taken lightly. And I don't think that guns improve security. There are other ways to make sure you are heard by the government. Threatening someone with a gun to get off your lawn sounds medieval to be honest. At least there should be strict tests before one could buy a gun and buying one from the super market is definitely to be avoided.
@@StefanoPapaleo-TSyou cant your sudoer password is held by your police so you will have to call them first and see if they are in the mood to give it to you
Last week I was the victim of a home invasion. The guy was trying to kill me and my family, but I yelled at him "better stop or I'll call the police and they'll be here in 10-14 minutes!" He ran immediately.
As someone from Ireland... the USA seems a very strange place to me. I guess we have a similar fascination for alcohol... that Americans have for guns. In Ireland we demand the right to drink as much Guinness, beer and whiskey as possible. Sitting in a pub in Ireland watching the news on TV... it cuts to the USA..... A 17 year old carrying a machine gun down the street being chased by others and he ends up shooting some guys..... we just turn to each other in disbelief. Then the TV is turned off and an old man will say... Ah sure it takes all sorts to make up this world. And we all continue drinking...
I wanna go to Ireland soooooooo badly, and sit at the gates of St James (take a tour), and go to a pub, and raise a pint and say....Sláinte! Oh and the kid that opened fire on those idiots.....You must have gotten the Liberal news coverage. And not the full story, WHICH showed that same kid being attacked and punched by those same people that he shot at. Otherwise known as Self-defense here in the U.S. when he fired that weapon at the people that attacked him. Personally, His happy arse should of stayed home, and his mother should be charged with multiple state and federal charges.
@@douglasward718 Old enough to remember Ruby Ridge, Waco and Tim McVeigh... Old enough to have had guns pointed at me by British soldiers... which was the case every time you crossed the border.
I can agree on open source and free software, however I'm from Japan and moved to America almost 10 years ago. I do not feel safe in this country at times and don't believe I should have to carry a gun to do so. I've been held at gunpoint and this would have never happened in Japan. Not saying robberies don't happen, it's rare but there is surveillance everywhere as well and fear instilled regarding consequences. Guns are far too accessible in the US with very little required to be able to purchase one. Generally not even mental health screening! There is crime in Japan and its far from a perfect country but you shouldn't be scared to walk around at night in the cities fearing that having a gun pulled on you.. EVER. I generally have no idea how somebody can believe that in such an unregulated system that this could be a good idea. I mean this isn't a third world system but some things generally just don't make sense. I understand that yes, if you're a felon you cannot obtain a gun legally but with so much availability and little to no tracking not to mention reregistering not even being a thing, there's no way to know where many guns can end up. Ranting on this topic wasn't my intention I just can't understand the mindset. The country isn't an old American country western film anymore. To many guns are used towards violent hate crimes, murder and just plain acts of violence. I'm aware that since others have these weapons that we think its only right to have them as protection but that's where I think the system has failed us. I hate politics and even being involved in these conversations but I cant be the only one that thinks this way. humanityalleged
It's less of an issue in japan not because owning firearms is illegal in japan, but because japan is a homogeneous society. If you only account for caucasians in USA then USA has less gun problems than many european countries where owning a firearm is illegal.
I can see what you mean when talking about freedom of tools, but I can't really come up with a proper valid use case for owning several guns (compared to a wrench, a hammer or free pieces of software). If you're doing hunting, or setting off explosives used for some kind of construction or mining, sure, a gun is a nice tool to have. But for the average person, the main use case would be defense, right? How does owning a gun in a country where everyone else owns a gun make you any safer than not owning a gun in a place where almost no one has access to guns?
So... How does not owning a gun in a country where almost no one has access to guns, but almost everyone who has a gun is criminal makes you any safer?
@@norangico I live in a country with effective gun control and I have literally never been fearful that I may be threatened by anyone (criminal or police) with a gun. It does not even cross my mind as a possibility - it is something we see only in movies. Being struck by lightning is a more serious threat than someone pointing a gun at me. I often see pro-gun Americans talk about "but what if.." as if this were a hypothetical. It is not a hypothetical; we know exactly what happens when proper gun control laws exist because many countries have already done it. It does not turn the country into a criminal paradise where they can run around shooting everyone with nobody to shoot back.
@@Aethid Am I talking about something hypothetically? Likewise, being able to buy a gun for an ordinary citizen does not turn the country into a paradise for psychopaths who mashote every day. You are very lucky if, as you say, criminals do not exist in your country. I am not American. In my country, the police are very corrupt and ineffective. But I believe that even in countries where the police work effectively, people should have the right to defend themselves, to do more than call the police. The desire of people to transfer responsibility for their lives and property to someone else ( the police, the state ) is absolutely contrary to my moral intuition
@@odisdracul You need only into today, right now, to see the outcome of getting rid of guns. To all the countries which have done just that. You know, the ones which totally conincidentally have *zero* crazies murdering dozens of children in schools.
Man you would hate living in Denmark. It is illegal to own weapons and it has come to the point where people pretty much think self defense is illegal. It's so bad that if you can't prove you acted in self defense, they will consider you the assailant.
Having to prove an attack was made in self-defence is an important part of law in most developed countries. Otherwise you could go around attacking anyone and claim self-defence. Surely proof you were attacked first is necessary in order to prosecute fairly.
@@renealbrechtsen9743 Evidence is collected and then a case is made. I mean what's your solution to this? Automatically getting a free pass once someone claims to have acted in self-defense?
First of all I want to clear out that I've never lived in the US so I don't know how that second amendment affects your everyday life. The way I see it, gun prohibition is similar to the traffic laws and the nuclear weapon agreement countries have, as in that it's a trade-off between freedoms and order, and in this case I'm willing to not have a gun if it means the others won't either, same as I'm willing to follow the traffic laws if it means that others will as well. Sure there will be people who won't, but it will be a minority. - A gun has a major difference from let's say knives, it just needs a trigger to be activated instead of needing you to active use it. Same reason why a lot of people who try to kill themselves with a knife give up while cutting, you have more margin to back down before committing the unforgivable. - A gun is a tool, yes. But what purpose does it serve besides protecting you from other people wearing that same tool? I'd also like to clear out that I don't think that getting rid of second amendment is conceivable in the present USA. No method to be sure everyone will give out without a long term change of mentality. But for the countries that have guns already prohibited they better stay that way.
There is an important difference between guns and knives which you did not mention: A knife is a tool which can be used as a weapon: It can be used to kill, but that is not its intent. It was made to whittle wood, cut vegetables, or spread butter. A gun is just a weapon: Killing is its primary purpose.
It's primarily about having the ability to overthrow a tyrannical govt. And by that logic, yes I do think we should have tanks, anti air missiles, and even recreational mini nukes but I think the people in the army with access to these will defect over to our side or at least that's my hope. Secondly it's about liberty and it's part of the american creed. We don't like being told what to do. If someone told you that everyone had to use windows and nothing else, would you go along with it because now everyone is using windows? This doesn't make sense. We generally don't trust our institutions and are fiercely independent. That means we want whatever the govt is currently using and even if the cops can teleport to you when there is trouble, we would still want to defend ourselves. This in your example would be a select few "trusted" people using GNU/Linux just in case Windows isn't enough. Our great nation was founded on the principle of god given rights and liberties and we came together to form a government to protect those liberties. It's very different from everyone else whose rights were granted to them by the govt as a privilege and who can take those privileges back whenever it wants. We will never hand over our primal right to self preservation to a government that's supposed to simply protect those rights, not encroach on them Now I want to address the differences between tools and guns you mentioned. We also have tasers and rubber bullets as well but these aren't as much of a deterrent as a live round being fired as a warning shot and then a non critical shot. I'd argue there is even more margin to back down because once someone pulls a gun out, you know to back up. And if they fire a warning shot, you know to run. The gun serves a purpose both as an equalizing tool to defend yourself against anyone with any weapon and as a deterrence tool. Imagine grandma being robbed by 3 young buff guys. She pulls out a handgun and it's a much fairer fight. She pulls out an AR and they better run. You're right about any attempt to take guns away met with harsh backlash (and war) here in the US. It's in our blood. We're not trusting like you Europeans (I'm guessing) and that's served us well at least these past 25 years with all these wars, govt spying, false flag events, more and more authoritarian politicians. The gun is insurance against a tyrant, a deterrent for a would be tyrant, a tool for hunting game and a defense tool to protect your loved ones, your property and yourself
Nukes, napalm, fighter jets, tanks, none of that will work to control urban center where the population is armed. Superior firepower couldn't defeat a bunch of rice farmers with inferior guns, it wouldn't work in US soil either. The 2A has explicit language about the government not being allowed to confiscate guns, even for its own self-preservation. Because that's the only thing the constitution can do, gun ownership is a Negative Right. The Constitution only has the power to control what the government can do. But the text, if you understand English, makes it clear, it's an intrinsic right that can't be violated. Go and read some shithole country's constitution, and it'll often say "we the government hereby allows you the right to ...", everything is stated as a positive right, an artificial right that the government gives you. The 2A has none of that. You have the right to own guns, for the obvious purposes of defending life, freedom and property.
@@Captainunsuccessful I have a pretty hard time understanding this argument. A piece of software designed for aiding in the development of security systems is in some sense equivalent to a weapon designed for killing? Huh?
As a Swede I first thought, oh he is kidding, this is satire, ...I was waiting for the big "Hahaha, of course this is a joke!"-moment ... and then gradually as the video progressed I realized .. my god ... he is serious! Then I remember that, yes, USA sadly seems to be in a state of civil war and I presume that yeah, in a war you have to defend yourself. Beyond all debates and analyses of what is right and wrong and culture this and culture that ... I truly wish you peace sometime soon!
Same, especially after "It's so important, it's the first amendment!" But if an amendment is a change of law and it's so important, why wasn't it in law in the first place? (Also, the Second Amendment states the right to bear arms for the trained militia)
Also from Germany here. Gun rights is an essential part of the USA and if you take that away you are taking away a part of the US culture and how they are perceived.
@@hakkinen3k one doesn't need to be sick to Love guns. But there are lots of steps missing and contradicting to get to the conclution that the right to own guns in a militia is the same as the right for anyone to own a Gun without restrictions and that is the same as Free and Open Software... It is some Steps missing, like the number of school schootings. And still be against registration ofguns and their owners. As if that AK-47, Communism Gun, would be able to protect against militärt or police shooting to kill.
I dont think you can compare software with guns, while the former is a tool that could be used for every purpose the latter has only one (intended) purpose, which is hurting, killing or threatening others. While owning a gun may seem fair in countries like Amerika, thats only because you have to fear other might own a gun too. Here in europe you dont have such fears, so you dont feel the need to own weapons in order to protect yourself. However I do agree that topics like this need more open discussion without political prejudice.
as an european i disagree look at all the grenades they keep finding or the gang liquidations happen in some countries it most definitly makes me want to have the capability to defend myself because as it stand in alot of places here in Europe the criminal has more rights the victim itself
I'm supporting free software because it's an international topic and doesn't harm anyone. For guns, I simply stay away from this discussion because I'm not an american anyways. Edit: But one thing to mention if you really play with the idea to fight against the military and government today, have fun to fight against high tech autonomous drones and what else they have nowadays. If you use tech that's hundreds of years old against new tech, I don't know how big the human ego and hubris is. Maybe it's only the old romantic idea of self heroism to take it up with everyone, that drives this "argument" but I don't know and I don't care because that's not my stance anyways.
That’s why the second amendment is supposed to defend your right to own *any* weapon and form militias (which people commonly make the mistake of not differentiating from “military” when reading the second amendment). The air force owns autonomous drones, the Navy owns Carriers, and technically, you can too! If you have the money to pay for it that is. Of course, money will always be another issue.
@@RANDOMNAME-kj1zv Ok that's fine, but it doesn't make the argument for normal guns against the government stronger. And if my country is in a state where I myself must buy military weapons, there's something REALLY wrong. So you have the "self defense" argument left. Personally I choose professionals to protect me, instead of buying a gun and invest the time to learn to operate it. Only because someone buys a gun doesn't make em useful with that. Every knife or even a hit is faster, so you need to buy one, learn to use it and simulate some scenarios that you can react fast. And if I look at shooter simulation games (not ego shooters, but something like ARMA or similar), they're even easier because you don't must operate the weapon, most people are far away from to make a gun useful in a critical real life scenario. But anyways, as I said above luckily that's not my problem and if my country gets to this state that the justice system is that broken, I'm out. In a fight or flight scenario I'll always choose flight, I've better things to do in my life than to risk it. If I'm going through several scenarios, there will never be a situation where I would need a gun, even more so without regular training. I can understand both sides but before I would ask for guns I would ask for a working justice system. Of course most americans have another opinion about this, that's why I would never want to live there, the amount of shootings are insane if you look at it from another country.
@aboutthetruthmedia organization hmm it is kind of counter intuivitv but I actually feel more free than I would if guns were allowed in sweden. Yes I don't have the freedom to wear them, but there are less people that can infringe on my freedom with guns aswell. Having a gun will not always protect you so it seems nicer to not have any at all so that I don't have to feel restricted or afraid of strangers. Having the "look over your shoulders" feeling dosent really feel free. That being said we I understand it is cool as a hobby and I understand why people in USA want them. But I feel like not being able to wear arms is one of the best things about Sweden (and like 90% of the worlds countries where it is forbidden)
@aboutthetruthmedia organization Basically in an ideal world freedom would mean you get to carry guns. But there are unfortunatley to many stupid people for that to be possible IMO
I guess it's weird until windows start getting shattered in your own city. According to Sweden's immigration data, this should come to you soon! Have fun.
@aboutthetruthmedia organization haha yea its true our welfare system made us from the most badass people to the most timid. We still got those genes though, we are tall as hell :D
@aboutthetruthmedia organization Hmm you're actually right about the surge in crime recently, not sure how it would have worked out if we were allowed to have guns in Sweden. The situation with New York and Texas is actually a really good argument for guns. Hmm Im not quite sure why Sweden has so much criminality really, we have a super strong healthcare system and equality and other similar countries like Denmark, Norway and Finnland dosent have the same problem. I think we are more of an outlier in this case actually. But yea what you said has actually made me rethink somewhat
Software is just a tool. Gun is just a tool. Ballistic missile with nuclear warhead is just a tool. I'm from europe and imo you should be able to own and carry gun. You should also be properly vetted if you are somebody who should get such a access. When people unfit to have guns are getting access to them than there is an issue. Having proper checks that might take some time does make a difference. This have nothing to do with foss software.
@Gryffin DarkBreed Well, I believe there is already a background check before buying a gun in the US (not a deep exam, maybe not the same for all guns), so the government already can prevent you from buying a gun if it want. I mean, if the idea was to prevent political opponents, the infrastructure would already be in place and verifying, for exemple, that you know the consequences of owning a gun and how to handle it safely (like a driving license) wouldn't be needed to suppress the opponent
@Gryffin DarkBreed I this all the debate here is: should it be an unalienable right? And I maintain that the state already can control who is fit, like people convicted of a crime are prevented from buying guns (I may not be 100% right because as I am not american I don't know the law exactly, but the essence should be right)
It's unfortunate that the english language has the same word for free (meaning no pay), and free (meaning liberty). The free software movement is only about the latter. It's a rookie misconception, clarified very quickly once you look it up.
@jacob sparrow Thanks. The link ultimately landed on the report, which stated a few different studies with a huge range of defensive firearm uses. One study said about 116,000 cases, the other said 2.5 million. The report did mention that the data could be unreliable and it seems like it is considering the huge gap. These numbers are also from the 1990s and I believe the data is all self-reported by gun owners. If that's the case, though, then even the low estimates (60,000) is still twice as many as people that died from firearm injuries in 2017, which is huge if you assume that each of those use cases was a life-or-death situation.
A hammer and a gun are both tools, but one is designed for hitting nails, and the other is designed to kill. Saying "well a hammer can be used to kill people" or "well a gun can be used for other things" is kind of dishonest, because they are not designed to do those things, and people don't use them for those things.
In the US, more people are killed yearly with blunt objects than by the scary semiautomatic rifles that everyone wants to ban. There are literally millions of guns in the US, and only a tiny tiny tiny fraction of them will ever be used to hurt anyone. The real purpose of our second amendment is to spread authority out among all the people, instead of allowing it to consolidate in government. Because authority ultimately only derives from the threat of violence, which is what all of those millions of guns that will never hurt anyone provide. No, there are several things that correlate to violence, but high levels of gun ownership is not one of them. There is, if anything, a bit of a negative correlation, although personally I think that can also be explained by cultural factors.
They're meant to protect, not to destroy. If you see a gun as a killing machine, you're probably the type of guy that would vote for fascist states. Guns are meant to protect your life, your family, your property, your country, your rights. Anyone should be able to defend themselves against danger, e.g a woman. I don't expect a woman defend herself against a man double her size, and this is why gun's rights should be women's rights too. Again, they're meant to protect your way of life, and if you see them as killing machines, don't own one, but allow us to get one.
@@112BALAGE112 why a .22 is great for kids no recoil easy to manage and depending on where you live you can plink with them in your yard get them a rider first and then a ruger
@@112BALAGE112 it is excellent for kids! My first gun was a .22 when I was 9 and I've seen kids as young as 4 handle them with no problem. Pretty much no recoil so it won't scare a kid and very cheap you can get a .22 for < $100 and it's the cheapest caliber ammo there is!
One is designed specifically for killing and the other is designed specifically to unlock human potential. It doesn't seem like a fitting comparison. Freedom always comes at the cost of safety. Safety always comes at the cost of freedom. For example, we don't want people to have the freedom to murder anyone they choose, we would prefer to deny everyone that freedom in order to increase safety overall. There are some freedoms that are worth giving up in order to promote safety. Why is the freedom to bear arms so important to Americans that they sacrifice safety to the extent that they are willing to put up with mass shootings on a regular basis? Freedom is important, but it comes at a price, and sometimes the price isn't worth paying.
Because authoritarian countries don't have their fair share of violence, right? Because Europeans can't just go get a truck and run over people. The whole idea that authoritarianism gives you safety is false. It psychologically destroys your population and ultimately leads to more suffering. Just look at Russians if you want a living proof. Freedom is the natural and fundamental state of human beings and anyone trying to take that away is a danger to humanity.
@@EhKurd There is no such thing as total freedom, there are always rules that govern our existence, whether it be hunger or gravity. There are many rules made by people that I'm sure you would agree with. For example most societies implement a rule that forbids a person from having sex with a child. Is that not a good rule? Why is it that there are a huge number of homicides in the USA, and a relatively tiny number in European countries? According to this website, the USA has the fourth highest murder statistic in the world. interestingworldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/murder-rate-by-country A vehicle is a very inconvenient murder weapon. It's very expensive, you need a license, there are many locations that are inaccessible and it's slow so your victim could survive by jumping out of the way. Or you could go to a supermarket, load up a trolley full of guns and ammo, and whistle your way down to a nearby church, office or high school where you let loose a hail of fury upon those idiots who didn't take you seriously.
The purpose of the firearm *is* safety in the case that it becomes time to revolt against the government. But pretending it's just about freedom here's the truth that no one is willing to admit: The price of mass shootings is *dirt* cheap. 12 people died of mass shootings this year. They're a negligible chunk of homocides and homocides are a small chunk of deaths. If freedom isn't worth 12 deaths a year in a country where 655,000 people die annually of heart disease then it's not worth anything.
@@ChrisHaupt The government totally being in the pockets of special interests and all democratic channels (other than violent revolution) being ineffective at thwarting it Major politicians aligning themselves with rioters Massive eroding of our rights (MAYBE half of the bill of rights is intact) Our last president (and this is not a defense of the current president) passed a law that allowed the indefinite detention of US citizens without trial. Police that are completely unaccountable when they murder innocent civillians Both major parties rigging their primary elections making it so very few non status-quo politicians even make it to general elections The government refusing to use its anti trust powers at all, making it so Disney is somehow allowed to own a major news network (ABC) while also lobbying congress and while also owning what....5/6 of the highest grossing movies every year for the past few years? Same can be said for Jeff Bezos owning Wapo. Same can be said with Time warner owning both CNN and being an ISP. How we deal with Amazon and Disney and the ISPs are serious political issues and when they control both the government and the press I have a hard time believing peaceful solutions will work.
tbh the free software movement really does strike a socialist/communist chord but I could see how libertarians (anarcho-communists) would be drawn to it as well.
Great video, but I have just one problem: *Liberal ≭ Communist* "Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary." - Karl Marx, London, 1850.
I think he's just being sarcastic with the word, implying that when inevitably a state or country actually becomes communist, the people will no longer be able to bear arms.
Different subjects that needed to be handled in different ways. You can't compare a hammer to a gun, just check the statics on how much people die by gun compared with people that due by hammer and you see that guns are problematic. This also apply to free software, how much people is harmed by software? Can't compare, and if you need a gun for security, the problem is with the government that can't provide it for you.
As a millennial from the Netherlands i cannot even imagine that my country has gun rights. For me it is basically the same as speeding, the government is trying to protect its people. If you are the only one driving to fast it wouldn't really matter, but if everyone is driving to fast it becomes dangerous. If only you had a gun to protect your self it wouldn't really matter, but if everyone had gun it becomes dangerous. It is obvious that in the US there is way more gun violence then here in Europe because not many people here have a gun. That said i do think gun regulations and traffic rules have an impact on my freedom and that life would be more fun without them.
well they aren't working very well if i say so myself we seem to have had a lot of them lately but hey the incidents with automatic rifles and the assassinations in the big cities and the hand grenades being found in front of the stores in Amsterdam have dropped since covid
@@stijnvanzeggeren8637 it might have not but i believe it also wouldn't necessarily have created more of them but that is not to say that i want zero laws regarding guns in general that is a given for a country like the Netherlands but we do need to take a look at our laws regarding self defense
Ok let's try that "a tool is just a tool" argument with something like opioids. Heroin is just a tool right? "Heroin doesn't kill people, people kill themselves". I agree with the main point of the video but find that argument to be bizarre and arbitrary.
on the surface your argument seems strong however it is deeply flawed, I imagine on purpose. If you wish to look at opioids as tools then that would move them into the realm of medicine, when used properly in the management of pain they can prove quite beneficial, when they are misused then a problem comes in. That would be how to frame the argument of a tool is a tool in terms of opiods. Your framing would allow for the banning of knives, hammers, baseball bats, pretty much anything that has done something to harm someone. Oh let's not forget sugar. But I shouldn't worry the police state you dream of will keep you nice and safe I'm sure.
@@jimduchow1580 Sounds like you are changing the definition to fit your views. Opiods are tool which treat pain and guns are tools which kill people (or animals). Killing people is not a side effect or something. Also your strawman is ridicolous as I specifically stated that I agree with the point of the video: I thing having a gun should be a right. I just don't think that the "tool" argument really shows any hipocrisy, that's all I'm saying
LOL. What a perfectly terrible argument you make, Georgij. Are you advocating for getting rid of opioids? While opioids are misused, they are _incredibly_ useful in medical fields. Likewise firearms are misused, but they are _incredibly_ useful for personal protection and hunting.
I live in a country with no 2nd amendment or anything similar, I just like distro hopping and tinkering. I recently saw a guy going at another guys skull with a hammer, he missed and hit him on his back. If it were a gun in his hand I don't know if there would be any second chances, lives would have been ruined. They were brothers. Guns are scary, I say this humbly, the parts in my country where guns are widespread, people get shot, if the innocent people living there were armed, people would still get shot. People can get very crazy very quickly. That being said I appreciate the perspective you show with the examples that you give where a gun would be necessary. Thank you. Btw I use arch.
@@jeffherdzina6716 that feels counterintuitive. Wouldn't visible guns discourage violent stuff as compared to where people are hiding or concealing their guns? If you are hiding a gun and someone jumps you you shoot, if you have one on a holster hanging out wouldn't criminals be discouraged? What is concealed carry exactly?
@@ChitrakChattopadhyay The Beauty of concealed carry is that the person trying to rob you, has no clue as to how many people are carrying a weapon. And, You can carry more than one firearm. In large groups, this puts the "bad guy" in a bad situation. Trust me ...where I live a lot of people carry. And even now we have Open carry in my State.
@@ChitrakChattopadhyay Where I live a lot of Men ..and Women carry weapons for protection. In fact the last time I was in a gun store. half of the people that were looking and buying a firearm, were women.
I'm Brazilian, we don't have constitutional rights to bear arms here in Brazil, getting auth to have and bear arms here are hard, expensive and you have to PROVE you need to have an handgun, you can't have militar grade stuff like rifles. Don't let this happens with you guys! Criminals can have all the guns and for the citizen whats remain is fear, fear from criminals, fear from police, fear from the state. Don't let the the state control you, politicians and the state should be afraind it's ppl, not the opositie , mantain you right to bear arms, don't let anyone take it from you, because this wouldn't be good for you, your nation and your family. When you lost a right it's hard to get it back, here not even the Brazilian President, Bolsonaro, could restore our right to bear arms!
I'm not really sure if you should connect foss to gun rights. It's already hard to own a gun legally, should you soften the process so that everyone can own guns? I don't know? "I've never heard anyone to suggest hammers kill people." well the primary function of a hammer is to hit with blunt force, and a gun is for shooting. Guns are tools built to harm the living, like ducks. Guns kill people and guns don't kill are both fine statements, it's just an easy term to use for the sake of promoting/demoting a policy. When it comes to this, I'm more concerned in how they acquired the guns, and the effectivity law enforcement. It's just ridiculously stupid that the first reaction is to remove a 'right' and not study how to prevent gun violence or violence in general. If people are violent and you forcibly remove their guns, they will just continue with violence with something like knives, and if you remove the knives, then they will use pen or whatever they can. Curing only the symptoms of a disease is not a very smart way of thinking. Again I don't think this should be something to do with foss. Guns are not open for everyone since you need a license. Foss is for everyone, license not included.
guns and hammers are both tools, its real simple a better example would be a drill and a gun: a drill is designed to make a precise hole right here, a gun is designed to make a less precise hole over there obviously you can make even more precise holes with something like a drill press, and there is equivalency there as well
@@pewpshidda1619 I don't think you understand my point, guns are tools that are primarily made for harming, that's why "guns kill" is a fine statement. Drills on the other hand is not designed to harm, because it is a highly inefficient tool for that matter. Anyways, whether or not a tool or an object is lethal or not does not necessarily mean you should ban them. So when someone says "guns kill" my reply would be "why should I care, that's not even that important of an argument."
Absolutely based. Although real communists would probably mostly agree with this. Liberal ≠ communist. The funny thing about liberals is they don't realize that both actual Marxists AND libertarians/individualists believe in the right to bear arms. Political ideology-wise, banning guns is in the minority.
Hey DT, I respect your right to wear guns, but disagree with the link you make with free software movement. I understand the freedom of speech and freedom to think, but don't think this video is good publicity for your movement and your channel. But this is only my opinion, as far as I have the right to express myself. Cheers
Nice to see DT get comfortable enough to share what is dear to him. I hope that DT tries to keep politics to a minimum on the channel but once a blue moon is fine.
Wow, this was very surreal. It was also slightly terrifying. My first instinct was that it was a joke, but those looked like real guns. Even if this is meant as a joke, I am having a hard time understanding why or how this fits in with a channel about technology and software, and I certainly see no relationship between gun ownership and free software. I strongly disagree with nearly every word in this video.
@@thecriticalg Not making an argument, just expressing how far off track this content is for this channel, and how little it has to do with the tech stuff he talks about normally. I also happen to strongly disagree with every word he says, but I do not think this is the right place to have such a conversation. And no, I am not afraid of guns. I am afraid of human beings who have guns, carry them around, and tell me I should have one. Those people are scary.
The freedom loving states: who try their best to abolish the freedom of women to do an abortion, or the freedom of drug users to take drugs, or the freedom of everyone to have a decent health insurance (and not die). But. The right to carry a gun openly in public is a fundamental freedom.
In Australia, few of us have guns and there are fewer mass shootings. One of the reasons I don’t want to visit the USA is because of the ownership of guns there and the attitudes towards them. It seems bizarre to me to even hear someone say “everyone should own a gun”. Videos like this remind why I should be grateful for living in a country without so many guns. Edit: I must say DT, even the thumbnail for this video seems bizarre from my perspective. The expression on your face, and the size of that rifle in your hand, is intimidating. No hard feelings though. I’m just expressing my opinion. Your content is great. 👍
jacob sparrow Who said the button presser not responsible? It is a very common argument from gun right defender that gun is just a tool, comparing it to something far less powerful like a knife or a baseball bat. Ignoring the impact factor would make that argument fallible.
To be honest, the fact that you need to carry a gun in order to feel safe wherever you live says more about that place rather than you and your values. If you've had to deal with looters, rioters, etc. throughout your life I can't even condemn your opinion.
It's the case in most places in the world, not all places are like japan with 99/100 of honnest people. And even like that you should have to blindly trust you government
I am for free software. But I disagree. I don't want guns all around me here and am glad that I live in europe. I am honestly shocked when i see that you can buy ammo and guns in a GROCERY STORE in the usa.. I support drug-decriminalization tho. If you support gun-rights. Why not go and let people buy claymores? Why not just sell armed tanks at the car dealership? Some things should be limited.. weapons are made to kill (say what you want "guns dont kill people", no indeed, but they make it a hella lot easier.. and they are litteraly invented for the purpose of killing)
As a rule free and open source software doesn't get use to do mass murder... Gun violence in the US rampant I still remember when school shootings and mass shootings were shocking now it's something that part of regular American life... If you want gun rights stand for RESPONSIBLE gun ownership that's something the US needs again...
@jacob sparrow the problem with your 'good guy with a gin' nonsense allows the bad guy to get a gun in the first place... The question you have you ask yourself who's the better shot? In Canada and other civilized nations we have gun control to help ensure that people with mental illness, and criminals (not sure if its all or just violent criminals) from getting guns legally. Yes criminals can still get guns but why make it easy for them?
(30 year aussie linux vet here) DT, you said it yourself. It's not the tools that are the problem, it's the people and I would agree with you on that. But if you need guns 'just in case' to protect yourself from the people walking on your lawn, the problem is then society and people. Most societies around the world have recognized that for the better good of society 'in general' easy access to weapons introduces an easy way to obtain an outcome that would ultimately end in death and in some cases to innocent people. So you can either bare arms or eliminate them from society. The second option has less people dying that is why most countries haven't gone down the American way. So respectfully I disagree with you.
I find it deliciously ironic how you describe the states with more gun control as communist states. Karl Marx famously said "Under no pretext should arms and ammunitions be surrendered, any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary". Most communists, including Marx, want to be able to arm the proletariat, so to say that banning civilian owned guns is communist is palpable and a complete strawman of what communists generally believe. Most communists agree with you.
hes probably doing what many right wing people do. calling most people to the left of them commies. come to think of it, the left call everyone fascists, so its kinda equal i suppose.
@@MirrorDimly I didn't mention soviet communism, I mentioned a quote from Karl Marx, who wrote the most influential material on communist theory. Most communists agree with Marx's analysis of society, regardless of where they are from.
@@aaaaaaaaabaaaaaaaaa Sure, sure. I won't contest that. The Bolshevik revolution could not have happened without violent uprising. I'm just saying that communism seems to have different perceived connotations from country to country (as we also see in other nations such as China and North Korea).
Actually, I think non-violent felons should be allowed to keep their gun rights. If you got arrested for weed or some blow 15 years ago, you shouldn't have your gun rights taken away from you. You have a beautiful gun collection btw.
It is a statistical fact that homes with guns in them are less safe (deaths from accident, mistaken identity, suicide, "heat of passion" in an argument, etc.).
This is more of a societal problem, then it is of a tool being misused; Heat of passion isn't really an argument when people can just as easily use anything else to beat someone. Besides, tons of people use their right for protecting either their home or their loved ones, every year, in the US :)
Thomas Jefferson once stated "every generation needs a new revolution". Gandhi taught us the use of firearms is not necessary for defending and /or improving the human condition. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi proved to the world that one can revolt by employing non-violent resistance, and, gain independence. On January 30, 1948, Gandhi's life was taken by a nut caring a concealed pistol. I have no use for owning a firearm, I can passively revolt by using free, & open-source software. I encourage everyone to join the rebellion against proprietary software.
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as guns,
is in fact, GNU/guns, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus guns
GNU plus guns would be a pretty cool metal band.
Yankee Boogle. DEFINITELY DON'T GOOGLE IT! :3
The AR-15 is probably a GNU/gun because you can customize it and make any part you want for it and don't have to pay any royalties to use it.
I could go for an open source weapons platform.
What did you think the 'G' in GNU stood for?
DT really doesn't want people to steal his dotfiles
His github repo is now closed source archives.
@@MrRenanwill he uses gitlab now
Lmao i would not dare xD
"Stop right there, punk. That's MY xmonad config file!"
i did a quick ctrl+c ctrl+shift+v
I am not from the US, so I can't tell of he is being serious or not, please help
He is comparing guns to screwdrivers. This has to be satire.
@@extremespaghett1107I don't think it is. He really meant this.
I do think he is being serious. From what I can tell and how these kinds of debates usually end up, he really meant what he said in this video. As an American, I can confirm this.
I'm a Canadian, and honestly I just can't understand the whole guns for self protection thing. I know very very few people that own a gun, and all of those that do own it for hunting purposes and usually live outside the big cities. I've never ever felt a need to have a gun in case of robbery or something...
@@sebnanchaster I, in spirit, agree with you, but you have to remember that you live in canada (and I do in russia); from what I hear, america can be very dangerous! especially considering that some bad people can have guns, so it's a catch 22 lol
I wonder what Luke Smith has in his garage...
intercontinental ballistic missile 🚀
a couple of Chad's that "puts the lotion on it's skin"
probably he have one, since he live in the woods
Bow and spear.
A white robe and a hood.
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as guns,
is in fact, ammo/guns, or as I've recently taken to calling it, ammo plus guns
I'd say it escalated quickly...
Talk about being trapped in political partisanship and then start calling some states communist for their gun policy...
@@Jumptohistory Communists are the "enemy" yo...
this kind of ultra right maccarthism sounds hilarious and insane if you are outside of the USA absurd debates.
@@Jumptohistory talk about talking about being trapped in political partisanship and then call accuse anybody who is anticommunist of being partisanly
@@Felipe-gz9uy so any body who is anti comunist is right wing?
'The great for children' really got me :D
Jesus (and I'm not even Christian).
@@minepro1206 Jesus (I'm Jewish)
its true though. very low recoil which makes it ideal for teaching children safe and responsible gun handling.
@@suburbanyute340 this. my son's 3 so still pretty young but in a few years I'm going to take him out one day with grandpa & teach him how to shoot with a 10/22 or something
@@jdally9872 thats exactly how i learned. same rifle and everything
this is the funniest linux video ive ever seen, the comedic timing as you pull out bigger and bigger guns is gold
lmao, cant believe DT made this video. but behind him and agree 100%
In the end he should pull out a tactical nuke.
Slap it and say, this baby is detonated remotely via embedded Linux and openssh.
I thought it was funny at first too, but those look like real guns. I think he might actually be serious, which is kinda terrifying.
@@tuerda It is okay to own guns
@@aemilianusmartinus5472 Yeah, I am not particularly bothered that he owns guns. I understand that in the US that is considered normal . . . In other places it would be considered pretty shocking, but whatever . . .
I *am* bothered that he thinks I should own guns too. I am even more bothered that he thinks that they are somehow related to free software.
This really is not the message free software advocates should be sending.
I do not want to see free software associated with controversial politics or weaponry.
I'm sure this won't be controversial at all.
Guns make killing a lot of people very easy. A WordPress website... Not as easy. If more gun owners were responsible we wouldn't need to have this conversation.
I'll admit you make great points, sadly not all owners are deserving of that right. When they flip a switch it's not a website that goes down it could be people... A lot of people.
@@JosephDickson The answer is simple. Lock up those people for a long, long time.
@@zzco yes, but one person going to jail doesn't really fit the crime in extreme cases. A single act of gun violence can have multiple victims.
@@JosephDickson it isnt just stuff like wordpress tho
@@zzco or the US could act like all the other developed nations. where I live we have (compared to the US) much stricter gun restrictions, much lower crime rates, milder sentences and our police doesn't have to kill as many people (only 10 on average per year per 80 million citizens).
I see DT has the unix approach even for his arsenal. A different one for different use cases.
But muh pipes!
@@sigmundfreud4472 A magazine sends their stdout to the stdin of the firearm. See they use pipes too.
I'm pretty sure all those guns have proprietary licenses, even the Vepr. I didn't see any ghost guns, possibly the AR, but even if you built it, likely it has some proprietary parts.
You need open source guns. Mill your own parts, get a 3d printer and learn to be a gunsmith.
Yes, and thank you Cody Wilson!
INDEED
Ghost guns aren’t made to be shown on camera lol
The patents for the AR-15 have expired a long time ago. There are plenty of gun designs that have never been patented, like the Luty SMG.
That's not necessarily open source.. He can mod his gun in any way or form if he chooses to do so.
"Next thing i suggest buying you, its a rocket launcher AT4. Its a great and elegant tool to deal with big problems."
Next thing I suggest buying is an Apache attack helicopter
@@cjchico is the software that keeps the Apache attack helicopter in the air free and open source? That is the question...
@@AndySmith_the_first Hopefully not, national security stuff should have dedicated a RTOS or something like it.
@@AndySmith_the_first Obviously it's free under the Apache licence.
I mean government have tanks and helis. How you gonna defend against them?
That 2.5k - 2.4k like-dislike ratio is looking spicy.
Now 2.6k - 2.5k
I'm 3yrs into the future. it's now 3.9k - 3.7k (I'm using the "Return RUclips Dislike" extension).
Maybe the "double standard" (hammers vs guns) exists because guns can only kill people, whereas hammers are designed to hammer nails.
People don’t walk into schools and kill masses of people with hammers either.
Criminals don't care if they are made illegal they will have one any way. How will you defend yourself then?
Johnathan Johnson guns are much more dangerous than knives, and knives have much more utility.
@@an93lofdeath there is a variety of non-lethal utils to choose from. maybe if the us wouldn't have such a wild gun law there would be less of a danger to be shot.
@panosid2000
The question of specific gun types aside, that is incorrect.
Guns can defend you non-lethally. Compare with countries having nukes - MAD meant that the nukes wouldn't actually be used, nor kill anyone, they would prevent a fight from ever happening.
Aside from that (slightly dodgy) comparison, also note that guns can kill animals. My native Sweden actually has a LOT of guns - in the hands of hunters. (And getting a hunting license isn't that difficult, assuming you don't have a criminal record.) If you have access to nature, and have some prepper tendencies, then having some hunting-capable rifles probably makes sense. (I couldn't be arsed, though. :P )
Where there's probably a good debate to be had is defining where a given type of gun is too dangerous to "count" - basically, how to not fall into the fallacy of someone having nuclear warheads to back up their "get off my lawn"... Basically, a weapon can be too dangerous to others through the risk of misuse/theft etc. Personally, I think certain US states err too far in the permissive direction, while countries like my native Sweden err too far in the restrictive direction.
You really just wanted to show off your guns, didn't you?
The difference between a gun and a hammer is that killing is all a gun is good for. A hammer at least is useful for other things as well.
yes but what do you kill with it humans, deer, rabbits, squirrels, ants maybe? that probably makes a difference
I feel like a gun is just a tool id a poor analogy though, since it's a tool that is designed with the primary job of killing, whereas a hammer has uses like building and simply might be used to kill. Likewise, open software may be used unethically but it generally can't kill anyone regardless of the person behind the keyboard...
@Marco does protecting yourself necessitate the potential death of others?
You started off pretty OK with talking about disagreeing with your party, but then went full partisan when calling states Free vs Communist
Not a very good video because of that.
Unfortunately I live in one of those states he would refer to as communist. It may be an exaggeration, but it is bad. It’s like the Constitution doesn’t exist. The only thing standing between us and the fate of countries like Venezuela is that document.
well, this isn't getting monetised *LOL*
LOL I just got 3 ads!
@@sigmundfreud4472 two ads for me
In a scale of 1 to 10, that comment is an 11 on the funny scale. I got an ad the second he finished saying "this gun is great for children as well" at 6:46
@@albynoson haha love it!
DT making a move for them 2A daddy bucks on Patreon
I lost all my guns in a fishing accident
I lost all my fish in a gunning accident
try a fishing rod next time
@@gaweynor dynamite. Dynamite is more effective
im impressed by both the size of your arsenal, and your taste in firearms.
Derek, I'm in the UK. It's a popular misconception that you can't own guns. You can own firearms in the UK. But they are heavily controlled, the regulations are very tight and you need to state your reason. Gun ownership is not something that many people in the UK do. This seems to work for us. But I get a great deal of enjoyment from channels like Hickok45, where there are responsible enthusiastic owners.
DT would define this restricted gun policies as Communism hahaha.
So ... UK, now, is a Communist country.
What the macarthism did at the USA ... They see "commies" in every place.
and this is a honest inquiry, not an attempt of an offense to someone, but since when is /not being a fully free and liberal state/ is considered communism? i am not in any way politically affiliated in ANY sense, this question just comes to mind coming from a country in south america (Argentina) where guns were never an option and we always get called communists because we have a reasonably "democratic" government, not in any sense actual communism, just not extremely liberal.
Calling other countries communist (when they are in fact not) is a bad habit that American society can't seem to lose since the era of cold war propaganda.
@@112BALAGE112I'm really sorry to hear that since it sometimes discredits actual good arguments by following up with something commie related.
Gun ownership is something communists advocate for quite heavily, Marx has a famous quote about it
@@iMarimbaFTW no and dont give me the it wasnt real comunism bullshit now in practise party members where allowed to have a single firearm but this was quickly dropped
It's tongue in cheek. I've read Marx and Hegel so I know what communism actually is but I still call California a commie shithole when joking around at work.
By extension of that logic you could argue that everyone should have a nuclear bomb.
You have to restrict the access to tools by their impact on society. Just like you wouldn't want everybody to have access root access on your machine as it would harm you a lot.
Then you go down the path of the British government which now considers pepper spray to be an offensive weapon.
RANDOM NAME Not really. I am pointing out that there are flaws in dt's logic. You have to take the consequences of access to such tools into account and make policies accordingly. Comparing a hammer, free software and guns is literally apples and oranges.
That is not to say that i am vilifying all guns. But rather that policies should be based on evidence and unbiased research.
You could argue that anyone should *be able to* have a nuclear bomb. Not everyone *should have them* but anyone *could buy one* if they have the money.
But actually no, it's not by that logic. Nuclear weapons are higher class weapons that simple civilians are not allowed to have.
Soft waffle DT argues that a hammer could also be used to kill someone but that you have the freedom to buy a hammer. After explaining that freedom in free software does allow you to use the software in any way you want.
So what is the point? That anybody should have the right to own any tool they want?
Ok, I'm a communist because I live in Germany where gun possession is very restricted. But I don't want to be a communist so I will move to the US.
But wait a minute, there are those strange speed limits on freeways, which is a violation of human rights as everybody knows here in Germany.
Are we all communists? I will ask my wife. She is Russian and should know.
communism (Marxism at least) is pro gun ownership
@@jac1011 Bullshit. Commies just want to arm the revolutionaries. After that, only the Party members can own guns.
In Soviet Russia, first thing Lenin did was to confiscate all guns. In Bulgaria, the first thing the Commies did after the coup of 1944 was to confiscate guns. East Germany banned guns. In Hungary, the commie government dissolved all gun clubs and disarmed everyone that wasn't loyal to the Party.
@Taurus Insult is the keyword. If we all disagreed without being disagreeable, the world would look a lot better nowadays.
Just want to preface this comment by saying I have actually watched this video a few times cause I really want to make sure I understand your point of view and where you are coming from before I make a comment. I also want to say that while my comment is mainly going to be anti guns I am not going to make any arguments on what could/should be done about guns cause I admit I'm not an expert. With that out of the way...
In response to your "guns are tools" point. I 100% agree that guns are just tools and people are the ones who decide what to do with that tool. However when people make this point they choose to only focus on comparing guns to other similarly dangerous tools and either avoid or fail to even consider the intended reasons the tools exist or why they were created in the first place.
A car is an extremely dangerous tool that costs a lot of people their lives every day but the primary purpose of a car is to transport you from point A to point B. A hammer (as you used as an example in the video) is a tool for hammering nails into wood, hammer things into shape, and other things that don't involve trying to harm or kill someone. Guns were originally designed to be a weapon to inflict harm on humans or animals. While target practice is a thing a gun is still primarily designs to harm or kill living creatures. You CAN make the argument that it does nothing unless a person does something with it. But most people that buy guns do it so that if they need to defend themselves, their home, or their family, they can shoot it at someone.
The number of people who buy a car so they can drive it into someone instead of to get from point A to point B, or who buy a hammer so they can bash someone's skull in instead of use it for construction is massively small compared to the number of gun owners who bought to hunt or defend themselves.
If you take into account the reasons these tools exist and the primary reason people buy them the whole "a gun is a tool" argument really means absolutely nothing.
To relate this back to free software there are many different things someone can make free software for. You can make a calculator, an image editor, a desktop environment, a streaming program. You can also make ransomware or piracy software designed solely to steal from specific sites / services.
While I fully support the idea that software should not have licenses that restrict who can use the software or how it can be used, modified, or distributed I would still argue that perhaps some software shouldn't exist and we should try to regulate the spread of software solely designed to harm people or steal from them.
I like to see comments like these because it showp people that you care for the topica at hand and you looked into it for a little bit of time, for that everyone thanks you.
Believe it or not your relation of guns to cars is correct in many ways but incorrect in few. As for example you said that mkre people buy guns to kill people instead of hunting or defending themselves. That is actually incorrect. The CDC had run a study on gun violence to deduce what people are buying their guns for. Over 3 million people have defended themselves in 2018 alone, that being compared to I think it was 100k people using it to kill another human being. Cars have killed more people than guns on a massive scale believe it or not.
It can't be said any better,.
Ian Hower my point was less about numbers or what is more dangerous and more about intent. Cars may be more dangerous but you don’t buy a car so you can inflict harm on another. You do buy a gun for that reason.
Even if everyone is the ideal gun owner and no one actually wants to actually use it on a person, a lot of gun owners out there buy a gun so that they can feel safe knowing they could use it on someone if they have to.
Whether guns kill more people or cars kill more people it doesn’t change the fact that only one of those items is actually designed to kill.
@Peter Andrijeczko Guns can and are collectors items and they can be fun to shoot. In Switzerland they have the highest gun ownership in Europe but hardly any deaths. You get to keep the gun but the ammo stays at the range you can clean mount and shoot your gun but with the proper precautions in place.
I agree with you really sensible thing you said there I hope DT understands it too
You've made a comparison at 4:38, but if you pick up a DVD with some software on it, and after that you take a katana, which object is more likely going to give you an urge to do something destructive? Well it depends on the software, of course, but my point is that when people say that guns kill people, they mean that guns were specifically designed for killing people.
actually most modern guns and ammo are designed to wound and not to kill but your example still requires intent if the intent is there the lack of legal capability to acces such an item is useless for the individual with such intent and only hinders tose without we can see this perfectly by looking at France belgium and germany
1) "which object is more likely going to give you an urge to do something destructive?"
Yikes man. If _any_ object is capable of giving you an urge to be destructive, I'd suggest you seek mental assistance of some sort.
2) "my point is that when people say that guns kill people, they mean that guns were specifically designed for killing people."
So? My guns have never killed anybody.
Knives were made specifically to kill, but most people use them daily without killing anything. Similarly with guns - of all the guns in civilian hands in America, virtually 0 are used during a criminal act.
I am not a US citizen, I am European. I am not against but neither supporting the Second Amendment. I really support what DistroTube is doing, but this is video operates with several incomplete and false premises:
- asks the rhetorical question "what exactly is ethical, or unethical?", then answers it: "well, it depends on who you ask. Its entirely subjective". --Now this is false. Fundamental ethics are not subjective - they are always deeply rooted in the historical and societal fabric of a nation/society. Mostly also deeply defined by religion. Ethics cannot vary by person. Even a lot of the US Constitution's amendments are based purely on ethical standpoints (e.g. 4th, 5th , 13th, 15th, etc). Ethics is not subjective, and in a society one simply cannot just come up with their own personal "subjective" ethical measures because without aligning that with the rest of the society it would risk the integrity of the society itself
- The software analogy is also very misleading because of how it is introduced here as an argument: There are so many type of software and the MAJORITY is simply not capable of doing any harm, not to speak of fatal damage (Yes, there are indeed software that can directly cause fatal damage, but the Average Joes cannot simply walk into the "software store" and buy a "Freedom Software" and hack the life support system of a hospital and kill people - or hack communication systems and cause fatal aircraft crashes, etc). But guns are ONLY made for one thing - and that is doing life-threatening or fatal damage. Comparing open source software in general with guns sounds appealing but it is completely wrong
- The hammer (and other tool) analogy was the worse: YES, there are a numerous tools that could be used for doing harm or killing someone: your hands, water, medication, a rope, a stone... There are so many, that I cannot even list the physical objects which because of their physical form or chemical attributes can be used for doing fatal damage to a living organism... but ALL THESE TOOLS and objects are created for a primary reason that is NOT doing harm or killing. In contrary, guns are ONLY made for this purpose. Why comparing these then?
- he states: "I've noticed that many people in the free software community tend to identify as Liberals". I think I understand why this statement was made, but it is truly sad how intentionally vague the phrasing is and how it is too easy to project a false perception with this. The fact of thinking in silos "Liberals vs. Conservatives" is doing already too much of a harm not just in the US - I see the very same (and shameful) tendency in my home country Hungary where the major tone of the conversations are "Liberals vs. Right-wingers", and in which conversations too many of the participants do not even have a proper definition of what "liberalism" is or what "patriotism", "nationalism", or "conservatism" are... Antifa is a good (extreme) example: they are the same as fascists/neo-nazis, just with a different agenda. They use the same tool set, are totally ditching logical thinking and reasoning, etc.
And finally - I am not discussing if gun rights are wrong, but I believe that we are so far away from a society that would be mature enough for bearing guns, that it is safer for the overall integrity of the society if people are first educated and assessed before having a licence to a gun.
Free and open source software meant to make the world a better place through the free sharing of knowledge and inspiration of research and cooperation. Gun rights are not about building an open and free society - it is purely about that business in which the US is the first exporter in the world (then comes Russia, China, and France...).
Here in Europe we have been through 2 World Wars, and people learned that it is NEVER the guns that solve the problems. I think (and this is my personal, subjective opinion) that the US needs much more of collective education, historical reflection, and a progressive approach to build a peaceful society - rather than let all civilians arm themselves and try to apply "eye for an eye" politics. It would be so much better to actually strive to achieve what open source software movement is meant for.
"Fundamental ethics are not subjective - they are always deeply rooted in the historical and societal fabric of a nation/society."
What is considered "right" and "wrong" behavior is absolutely subjective - thus morals, and ethics, are also subjective.
Here, let me help you out here:
eth·ics
/ˈeTHiks/
noun
1.
moral principles that govern a person's behavior or the conducting of an activity.
mor·al
/ˈmôrəl/
adjective
1.
concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.
"In contrary, guns are ONLY made for this purpose. "
I, as well as _tens of millions_ of other Americans, must be using our guns improperly then.
@@Locke99GS @Locke99GS well, I guess you missed the point: copying the definition of ethics and moral without understanding the word "principles" in them was, I guess, a logical flaw. If "right" or "wrong" were subjective (which is true on an individual level but never on a societal level), mankind wouldn't ever created the institutions of law and jury. We couldn't ever make a court decision if people (societal groups) wouldn't agree on a MUTUAL definition of "right" and "wrong", which makes these agreements objective (to a certain extent, at least for a group of people that share the same legislation principles - usually a nation).
Let ME help YOU out here: a samurai killing an other person of a lower class on the spot if that person made a big insult, was defined "right" by the commonly accepted definition of "kiri-sute gomen" in the feudal Japan. Now, this definition was outdated, and nobody is accepting such an act in the modern Japan, and such a killing (by anybody) is now defined "wrong". Not on a subjective level, but objectively by the society. And don't get me wrong: still, when it was right to kill this way, there might have been numerous individuals who probably defined it still as "wrong" on their subjective level, but the objective, society-wide definition was still "right", were not subjective, they were supported by an objective principle based on mutual agreement of the society of the given time and locus.
I may assume you were trying (without actually doing it, because copying two definitions without adding your own arguments is hardly "doing") to discuss the universal philosophical question of "right" and "wrong", but in this case it is a bit weird to start discussing how subjective the two are by adding two objective definitions in which you simply ignore one part of the definition (I.e. "prinicple") and furthermore ignoring the context and meaning behind the definition.
Speaking of what guns are made for: well, yes, although given the physical attributes of the objects you can use them as a hammer or paper weight, these are still only made for doing irreparable damage (in objects or organisms) by accelerating a projectile which collides with an other object. Of course, if you don't use it as intended (a.k.a. not operating it and not shooting) it can be used as a visual deterrence, but I would be really eager to see a real argument that explains the opposite - and please do not waste your time for an incomplete and false-premise-based attempt such as "using our guns in improperly then"... Maybe I misunderstood you, but I simply couldn't figure out what you were trying to suggest here. What are you using your gun for?
@@oumarh.gassama8063 Come on man. Now you're misunderstanding (or misrepresenting) "subjective" and "objective". Societal norms and mores don't make a thing objective.
sub·jec·tive
/səbˈjektiv/
adjective
1.
based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
"his views are highly subjective"
ob·jec·tive
/əbˈjektiv/
adjective
1.
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
I use my guns primarily for target plinking and action pistol competition. Since you say guns are "ONLY made for one thing - and that is doing life-threatening or fatal damage" and I am not using them for that purpose, then I and so many of my peers must be using them incorrectly. The vast majority of guns in America have never shot a person or animal, and very few ever will.
You've used and emphasized "ONLY" and "NEVER" in your original comment. It is hard to take seriously the ideas of somebody who fallaciously reduces things into monochotomies, then emphasizes that reduction. It is hard to take seriously the ideas of somebody who argues that the ideas if a society settles on an idea, that somehow that makes that idea an objective truth.
You probably made other arguments from flawed premises, but I honestly stopped really reading your comment when I realized that you don't seem to care that words have definitions, or that those definitions aren't in line with your argument. Sorry man, but I can't take your arguments seriously.
@@Locke99GS so now you make some ad-hominem fallacies ("it's hard to take seriously the ideas of someone") and using it as an argument?
You are right, I presented the two concepts incomplete and that was misleading. Objective is based on facts without the personal feelings - and that is where you misunderstood the concept: facts cannot be bent to match personal preferences. A rough example: The way a society works is a fact. Also, if the modus operandi of that society is unsustainable, is a fact. And the two facts can be simply controversial as they are facts of different layers of phenomena and processes: the given society works based on rules and the society flourishes, but for example destroys other societies. Both phenomena can be factual, and not enough to determine of any of those are "right" or "wrong" unless you inspect it from an ultimate holistic view. What if the "other" (destroyed) societies would have destroyed the habitat of the two? What if the society which destroyed the other would ultimately destroy the habitat?... which is wrong.
My assumption: If you would indeed understand subjective and objective, right and wrong, you'd be advocating for resolving global energetical-, political- and overall societal issues, and not focus on changing gun laws... But please, try to prove me wrong with real logic if you wish.
I agree with you that I was mistaken with saying that firearms are made for doing only damage to living things, that is why I was then adding that also objects are involved. Yes, there are shooting competitions, I am aware of that, but bringing it up as people are indeed advocate to carry firearms (even open carry) because they want to go to shooting competitions sounds....well... flawed. Current restrictive gun laws were never a burden of organising and carrying out shooting competitions, etc. Current restrictive gun laws never were a hindering cause for people who wanted to get into the shooting sport.
It's like: the fact that you have to pass tests and exams to get a driving license to drive a car or motorbikes is for everyone else's safety so you can operate those objects in public, the same is for gun laws.
Of course, if you use the guns in a safe and isolated location and environment (a.k.a. shooting/competition range) people won't care. But everyone would suddenly care if you bring your objects (that have inarguably primary lethal purposes) to public without any certifications.
You also go with the ambiguity fallacy by saying "you probably made other fallacies but I stopped reading"... nice try, but an assumption is s not a fact or an argument.
Anyway, enjoy your day, I was happy to exchange ideas, I learned from you and thank you for that!
Stay safe and healthy!
@@oumarh.gassama8063
1) "so now you make some ad-hominem fallacies ("it's hard to take seriously the ideas of someone") and using it as an argument?"
*sigh*
That is not an ad hominem because it was not used as an argument, it was a statement. For instance, if I were to say "You're stupid", that is not an ad hominem because it is not arguing anything. It would be a simple statement. (Presumably an incorrect one - it is just an example) Now if I were to say "You're wrong because you're stupid", that would be an ad hominem because it is an argument. (Also just an example - I do _not_ think you're stupid). See here:
ad ho·mi·nem
/ˌad ˈhämənəm/
adjective
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
ar·gu·ment
/ˈärɡyəmənt/
noun
a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.
state·ment
/ˈstātmənt/
noun
a definite or clear expression of something in speech or writing.
2) "You also go with the ambiguity fallacy by saying "you probably made other fallacies but I stopped reading"... nice try, but an assumption is s not a fact or an argument.
"
It was not an argument, again it was a statement. See above definitions to see the difference between arguments and statements.
Have a great day, sir.
This is tutorial how to "sudo su" irl :)
I don't live in the US but the major difference between a hammer and a gun is that a gun is made specifically to injure living organisms. Nothing to be taken lightly. And I don't think that guns improve security. There are other ways to make sure you are heard by the government. Threatening someone with a gun to get off your lawn sounds medieval to be honest. At least there should be strict tests before one could buy a gun and buying one from the super market is definitely to be avoided.
"Similar tools". Last week there was a burglar in my house and I cried " hey, beware, if you to not leave now, I run Firefox!' He ran immediately.
No need to cry. A simple 'sudo rm burglar' would have done the job. Silent & effective ;)
@@StefanoPapaleo-TSyou cant your sudoer password is held by your police so you will have to call them first and see if they are in the mood to give it to you
Wait, come back! I want haven't even told you about Arch yet!
Last week I was the victim of a home invasion. The guy was trying to kill me and my family, but I yelled at him "better stop or I'll call the police and they'll be here in 10-14 minutes!" He ran immediately.
As someone from Ireland... the USA seems a very strange place to me.
I guess we have a similar fascination for alcohol... that Americans have for guns.
In Ireland we demand the right to drink as much Guinness, beer and whiskey as possible.
Sitting in a pub in Ireland watching the news on TV... it cuts to the USA.....
A 17 year old carrying a machine gun down the street being chased by others and he ends up shooting some guys..... we just turn to each other in disbelief.
Then the TV is turned off and an old man will say... Ah sure it takes all sorts to make up this world. And we all continue drinking...
I wanna go to Ireland soooooooo badly, and sit at the gates of St James (take a tour), and go to a pub, and raise a pint and say....Sláinte!
Oh and the kid that opened fire on those idiots.....You must have gotten the Liberal news coverage. And not the full story, WHICH showed that same kid being attacked and punched by those same people that he shot at. Otherwise known as Self-defense here in the U.S. when he fired that weapon at the people that attacked him. Personally, His happy arse should of stayed home, and his mother should be charged with multiple state and federal charges.
Well, I mean, we actually left the Crown, so...
@@bigpod I'm not European.
@@douglasward718 Old enough to remember Ruby Ridge, Waco and Tim McVeigh...
Old enough to have had guns pointed at me by British soldiers... which was the case every time you crossed the border.
Guns? pah.....everyone should own a tank.
*killdozer
I assume you never consider laser gun
Perfectly legal under NFA. But not all states allow NFA items.
It is a basic human right for everyone to own an RPG
Your profile picture makes it more funny hahahaahaha
I can agree on open source and free software, however I'm from Japan and moved to America almost 10 years ago. I do not feel safe in this country at times and don't believe I should have to carry a gun to do so. I've been held at gunpoint and this would have never happened in Japan. Not saying robberies don't happen, it's rare but there is surveillance everywhere as well and fear instilled regarding consequences. Guns are far too accessible in the US with very little required to be able to purchase one. Generally not even mental health screening! There is crime in Japan and its far from a perfect country but you shouldn't be scared to walk around at night in the cities fearing that having a gun pulled on you.. EVER. I generally have no idea how somebody can believe that in such an unregulated system that this could be a good idea. I mean this isn't a third world system but some things generally just don't make sense. I understand that yes, if you're a felon you cannot obtain a gun legally but with so much availability and little to no tracking not to mention reregistering not even being a thing, there's no way to know where many guns can end up. Ranting on this topic wasn't my intention I just can't understand the mindset. The country isn't an old American country western film anymore. To many guns are used towards violent hate crimes, murder and just plain acts of violence. I'm aware that since others have these weapons that we think its only right to have them as protection but that's where I think the system has failed us. I hate politics and even being involved in these conversations but I cant be the only one that thinks this way. humanityalleged
It's less of an issue in japan not because owning firearms is illegal in japan, but because japan is a homogeneous society. If you only account for caucasians in USA then USA has less gun problems than many european countries where owning a firearm is illegal.
I can see what you mean when talking about freedom of tools, but I can't really come up with a proper valid use case for owning several guns (compared to a wrench, a hammer or free pieces of software). If you're doing hunting, or setting off explosives used for some kind of construction or mining, sure, a gun is a nice tool to have. But for the average person, the main use case would be defense, right? How does owning a gun in a country where everyone else owns a gun make you any safer than not owning a gun in a place where almost no one has access to guns?
So... How does not owning a gun in a country where almost no one has access to guns, but almost everyone who has a gun is criminal makes you any safer?
@@norangico I live in a country with effective gun control and I have literally never been fearful that I may be threatened by anyone (criminal or police) with a gun. It does not even cross my mind as a possibility - it is something we see only in movies. Being struck by lightning is a more serious threat than someone pointing a gun at me. I often see pro-gun Americans talk about "but what if.." as if this were a hypothetical. It is not a hypothetical; we know exactly what happens when proper gun control laws exist because many countries have already done it. It does not turn the country into a criminal paradise where they can run around shooting everyone with nobody to shoot back.
@@Aethid
Am I talking about something hypothetically? Likewise, being able to buy a gun for an ordinary citizen does not turn the country into a paradise for psychopaths who mashote every day. You are very lucky if, as you say, criminals do not exist in your country. I am not American. In my country, the police are very corrupt and ineffective. But I believe that even in countries where the police work effectively, people should have the right to defend themselves, to do more than call the police. The desire of people to transfer responsibility for their lives and property to someone else ( the police, the state ) is absolutely contrary to my moral intuition
One only need look into history, during the prohibition days, to see the outcome of getting rid of guns.
@@odisdracul You need only into today, right now, to see the outcome of getting rid of guns. To all the countries which have done just that. You know, the ones which totally conincidentally have *zero* crazies murdering dozens of children in schools.
Man you would hate living in Denmark. It is illegal to own weapons and it has come to the point where people pretty much think self defense is illegal. It's so bad that if you can't prove you acted in self defense, they will consider you the assailant.
Having to prove an attack was made in self-defence is an important part of law in most developed countries. Otherwise you could go around attacking anyone and claim self-defence. Surely proof you were attacked first is necessary in order to prosecute fairly.
@@torque5056 Obviously. But how are you going to prove you were attacked first if nobody else were around to see it ?
Learn kung-fu.
@@renealbrechtsen9743 Evidence is collected and then a case is made. I mean what's your solution to this? Automatically getting a free pass once someone claims to have acted in self-defense?
First of all I want to clear out that I've never lived in the US so I don't know how that second amendment affects your everyday life.
The way I see it, gun prohibition is similar to the traffic laws and the nuclear weapon agreement countries have, as in that it's a trade-off between freedoms and order, and in this case I'm willing to not have a gun if it means the others won't either, same as I'm willing to follow the traffic laws if it means that others will as well. Sure there will be people who won't, but it will be a minority.
- A gun has a major difference from let's say knives, it just needs a trigger to be activated instead of needing you to active use it. Same reason why a lot of people who try to kill themselves with a knife give up while cutting, you have more margin to back down before committing the unforgivable.
- A gun is a tool, yes. But what purpose does it serve besides protecting you from other people wearing that same tool?
I'd also like to clear out that I don't think that getting rid of second amendment is conceivable in the present USA. No method to be sure everyone will give out without a long term change of mentality. But for the countries that have guns already prohibited they better stay that way.
There is an important difference between guns and knives which you did not mention:
A knife is a tool which can be used as a weapon: It can be used to kill, but that is not its intent. It was made to whittle wood, cut vegetables, or spread butter.
A gun is just a weapon: Killing is its primary purpose.
Kali Linux is also a tool, but it's purpose is for hacking. Does that mean we should ban Kali Linux?
It's primarily about having the ability to overthrow a tyrannical govt. And by that logic, yes I do think we should have tanks, anti air missiles, and even recreational mini nukes but I think the people in the army with access to these will defect over to our side or at least that's my hope. Secondly it's about liberty and it's part of the american creed. We don't like being told what to do. If someone told you that everyone had to use windows and nothing else, would you go along with it because now everyone is using windows? This doesn't make sense. We generally don't trust our institutions and are fiercely independent. That means we want whatever the govt is currently using and even if the cops can teleport to you when there is trouble, we would still want to defend ourselves. This in your example would be a select few "trusted" people using GNU/Linux just in case Windows isn't enough. Our great nation was founded on the principle of god given rights and liberties and we came together to form a government to protect those liberties. It's very different from everyone else whose rights were granted to them by the govt as a privilege and who can take those privileges back whenever it wants. We will never hand over our primal right to self preservation to a government that's supposed to simply protect those rights, not encroach on them
Now I want to address the differences between tools and guns you mentioned. We also have tasers and rubber bullets as well but these aren't as much of a deterrent as a live round being fired as a warning shot and then a non critical shot. I'd argue there is even more margin to back down because once someone pulls a gun out, you know to back up. And if they fire a warning shot, you know to run. The gun serves a purpose both as an equalizing tool to defend yourself against anyone with any weapon and as a deterrence tool. Imagine grandma being robbed by 3 young buff guys. She pulls out a handgun and it's a much fairer fight. She pulls out an AR and they better run.
You're right about any attempt to take guns away met with harsh backlash (and war) here in the US. It's in our blood. We're not trusting like you Europeans (I'm guessing) and that's served us well at least these past 25 years with all these wars, govt spying, false flag events, more and more authoritarian politicians. The gun is insurance against a tyrant, a deterrent for a would be tyrant, a tool for hunting game and a defense tool to protect your loved ones, your property and yourself
Nukes, napalm, fighter jets, tanks, none of that will work to control urban center where the population is armed. Superior firepower couldn't defeat a bunch of rice farmers with inferior guns, it wouldn't work in US soil either.
The 2A has explicit language about the government not being allowed to confiscate guns, even for its own self-preservation. Because that's the only thing the constitution can do, gun ownership is a Negative Right. The Constitution only has the power to control what the government can do. But the text, if you understand English, makes it clear, it's an intrinsic right that can't be violated. Go and read some shithole country's constitution, and it'll often say "we the government hereby allows you the right to ...", everything is stated as a positive right, an artificial right that the government gives you. The 2A has none of that. You have the right to own guns, for the obvious purposes of defending life, freedom and property.
@@Captainunsuccessful I have a pretty hard time understanding this argument. A piece of software designed for aiding in the development of security systems is in some sense equivalent to a weapon designed for killing? Huh?
As a Swede I first thought, oh he is kidding, this is satire, ...I was waiting for the big "Hahaha, of course this is a joke!"-moment ... and then gradually as the video progressed I realized .. my god ... he is serious! Then I remember that, yes, USA sadly seems to be in a state of civil war and I presume that yeah, in a war you have to defend yourself. Beyond all debates and analyses of what is right and wrong and culture this and culture that ... I truly wish you peace sometime soon!
From Argentina here, and I also thought the same. It's a sad world.
Same, especially after "It's so important, it's the first amendment!" But if an amendment is a change of law and it's so important, why wasn't it in law in the first place?
(Also, the Second Amendment states the right to bear arms for the trained militia)
Living in USA is living with a paranoia. Sick people who support "guns rights"
Also from Germany here. Gun rights is an essential part of the USA and if you take that away you are taking away a part of the US culture and how they are perceived.
@@hakkinen3k one doesn't need to be sick to Love guns.
But there are lots of steps missing and contradicting to get to the conclution that the right to own guns in a militia is the same as the right for anyone to own a Gun without restrictions and that is the same as Free and Open Software...
It is some Steps missing, like the number of school schootings. And still be against registration ofguns and their owners.
As if that AK-47, Communism Gun, would be able to protect against militärt or police shooting to kill.
I guess DT decided he had too many subscribers...
good bye
claims about "communists" are kinda funny if u're famillar with what Lenin, for example, thought on gun rights and etc
I like you guys. Don't log onto your computer "tomorrow"
DT: "Why are people trapped in the political dichotomies?"
Also DT: "You either live in a free state or a communist state!"
Hello? Based Department?
I dont think you can compare software with guns,
while the former is a tool that could be used for every purpose the latter has only one (intended) purpose, which is hurting, killing or threatening others.
While owning a gun may seem fair in countries like Amerika, thats only because you have to fear other might own a gun too.
Here in europe you dont have such fears, so you dont feel the need to own weapons in order to protect yourself.
However I do agree that topics like this need more open discussion without political prejudice.
I agree with you so much
as an european i disagree look at all the grenades they keep finding or the gang liquidations happen in some countries it most definitly makes me want to have the capability to defend myself because as it stand in alot of places here in Europe the criminal has more rights the victim itself
I'm supporting free software because it's an international topic and doesn't harm anyone. For guns, I simply stay away from this discussion because I'm not an american anyways.
Edit: But one thing to mention if you really play with the idea to fight against the military and government today, have fun to fight against high tech autonomous drones and what else they have nowadays. If you use tech that's hundreds of years old against new tech, I don't know how big the human ego and hubris is.
Maybe it's only the old romantic idea of self heroism to take it up with everyone, that drives this "argument" but I don't know and I don't care because that's not my stance anyways.
That’s why the second amendment is supposed to defend your right to own *any* weapon and form militias (which people commonly make the mistake of not differentiating from “military” when reading the second amendment). The air force owns autonomous drones, the Navy owns Carriers, and technically, you can too! If you have the money to pay for it that is.
Of course, money will always be another issue.
@@RANDOMNAME-kj1zv Ok that's fine, but it doesn't make the argument for normal guns against the government stronger. And if my country is in a state where I myself must buy military weapons, there's something REALLY wrong.
So you have the "self defense" argument left. Personally I choose professionals to protect me, instead of buying a gun and invest the time to learn to operate it. Only because someone buys a gun doesn't make em useful with that. Every knife or even a hit is faster, so you need to buy one, learn to use it and simulate some scenarios that you can react fast. And if I look at shooter simulation games (not ego shooters, but something like ARMA or similar), they're even easier because you don't must operate the weapon, most people are far away from to make a gun useful in a critical real life scenario.
But anyways, as I said above luckily that's not my problem and if my country gets to this state that the justice system is that broken, I'm out. In a fight or flight scenario I'll always choose flight, I've better things to do in my life than to risk it. If I'm going through several scenarios, there will never be a situation where I would need a gun, even more so without regular training.
I can understand both sides but before I would ask for guns I would ask for a working justice system. Of course most americans have another opinion about this, that's why I would never want to live there, the amount of shootings are insane if you look at it from another country.
This is so weird to listen to as a Swede
@aboutthetruthmedia organization hmm it is kind of counter intuivitv but I actually feel more free than I would if guns were allowed in sweden. Yes I don't have the freedom to wear them, but there are less people that can infringe on my freedom with guns aswell. Having a gun will not always protect you so it seems nicer to not have any at all so that I don't have to feel restricted or afraid of strangers. Having the "look over your shoulders" feeling dosent really feel free. That being said we I understand it is cool as a hobby and I understand why people in USA want them. But I feel like not being able to wear arms is one of the best things about Sweden (and like 90% of the worlds countries where it is forbidden)
@aboutthetruthmedia organization Basically in an ideal world freedom would mean you get to carry guns. But there are unfortunatley to many stupid people for that to be possible IMO
I guess it's weird until windows start getting shattered in your own city. According to Sweden's immigration data, this should come to you soon! Have fun.
@aboutthetruthmedia organization haha yea its true our welfare system made us from the most badass people to the most timid. We still got those genes though, we are tall as hell :D
@aboutthetruthmedia organization Hmm you're actually right about the surge in crime recently, not sure how it would have worked out if we were allowed to have guns in Sweden. The situation with New York and Texas is actually a really good argument for guns. Hmm Im not quite sure why Sweden has so much criminality really, we have a super strong healthcare system and equality and other similar countries like Denmark, Norway and Finnland dosent have the same problem. I think we are more of an outlier in this case actually. But yea what you said has actually made me rethink somewhat
Software is just a tool.
Gun is just a tool.
Ballistic missile with nuclear warhead is just a tool.
I'm from europe and imo you should be able to own and carry gun. You should also be properly vetted if you are somebody who should get such a access. When people unfit to have guns are getting access to them than there is an issue. Having proper checks that might take some time does make a difference. This have nothing to do with foss software.
Problem is that people can own a gun illegaly and you should habe your own to counter that
@Gryffin DarkBreed Well, I believe there is already a background check before buying a gun in the US (not a deep exam, maybe not the same for all guns), so the government already can prevent you from buying a gun if it want. I mean, if the idea was to prevent political opponents, the infrastructure would already be in place and verifying, for exemple, that you know the consequences of owning a gun and how to handle it safely (like a driving license) wouldn't be needed to suppress the opponent
@Gryffin DarkBreed I this all the debate here is: should it be an unalienable right?
And I maintain that the state already can control who is fit, like people convicted of a crime are prevented from buying guns (I may not be 100% right because as I am not american I don't know the law exactly, but the essence should be right)
Derek went based mode
press ESC to go normal mode NORMAL
he literally said ethics is subjective, but Jesus Christ gave us the LAW! I like Derek, but my life changed when accepted the lord.
When you call states communist, but want software to be free....
It's unfortunate that the english language has the same word for free (meaning no pay), and free (meaning liberty). The free software movement is only about the latter. It's a rookie misconception, clarified very quickly once you look it up.
Our software
One main difference is that free software does not kill tens of thousands of people every year.
How many innocent people American's drones have killed in the middle East ? I'm 100/100 sure their software use many free software
ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11.xls more deaths by blunt objects than rifles in the US
@jacob sparrow link?
@jacob sparrow Thanks. The link ultimately landed on the report, which stated a few different studies with a huge range of defensive firearm uses. One study said about 116,000 cases, the other said 2.5 million. The report did mention that the data could be unreliable and it seems like it is considering the huge gap. These numbers are also from the 1990s and I believe the data is all self-reported by gun owners.
If that's the case, though, then even the low estimates (60,000) is still twice as many as people that died from firearm injuries in 2017, which is huge if you assume that each of those use cases was a life-or-death situation.
A hammer and a gun are both tools, but one is designed for hitting nails, and the other is designed to kill. Saying "well a hammer can be used to kill people" or "well a gun can be used for other things" is kind of dishonest, because they are not designed to do those things, and people don't use them for those things.
In the US, more people are killed yearly with blunt objects than by the scary semiautomatic rifles that everyone wants to ban. There are literally millions of guns in the US, and only a tiny tiny tiny fraction of them will ever be used to hurt anyone.
The real purpose of our second amendment is to spread authority out among all the people, instead of allowing it to consolidate in government. Because authority ultimately only derives from the threat of violence, which is what all of those millions of guns that will never hurt anyone provide.
No, there are several things that correlate to violence, but high levels of gun ownership is not one of them. There is, if anything, a bit of a negative correlation, although personally I think that can also be explained by cultural factors.
They're meant to protect, not to destroy. If you see a gun as a killing machine, you're probably the type of guy that would vote for fascist states.
Guns are meant to protect your life, your family, your property, your country, your rights. Anyone should be able to defend themselves against danger, e.g a woman. I don't expect a woman defend herself against a man double her size, and this is why gun's rights should be women's rights too.
Again, they're meant to protect your way of life, and if you see them as killing machines, don't own one, but allow us to get one.
@polymechanosRhodesianos just to understand, if someone doesn't like guns, he/she is a communist?
HiFriend9 pretty much yes
@@j.rob.5943 but why?
the ideals of free software I think are very compatible with marxism
But DT, the circuit board on most rifles run proprietary code.
Can't tell if you're joking or just an absolute brainlet, I'll assume the latter
>circuit bord
>ON A RIFLE
I feel the same about Uranium, why can't I do what I want with it..?
Yeah I agree, let's go protest
Can't even carry a small tactical nuke in some states nowadays.
"It's great for children as well"
He must have been joking when he said that. I can't believe it.
@@112BALAGE112 why a .22 is great for kids no recoil easy to manage and depending on where you live you can plink with them in your yard get them a rider first and then a ruger
@@112BALAGE112 it is excellent for kids! My first gun was a .22 when I was 9 and I've seen kids as young as 4 handle them with no problem.
Pretty much no recoil so it won't scare a kid and very cheap you can get a .22 for < $100 and it's the cheapest caliber ammo there is!
112BALAGE112 No joke, the .22 LR is the perfect first rifle for any kid, and also the perfect first rifle for anyone who isn’t ready for .223 .
@@112BALAGE112 .22lr is great for kids! Sorry [not sorry] if you're afraid of the biiig black gun!
One is designed specifically for killing and the other is designed specifically to unlock human potential. It doesn't seem like a fitting comparison.
Freedom always comes at the cost of safety. Safety always comes at the cost of freedom. For example, we don't want people to have the freedom to murder anyone they choose, we would prefer to deny everyone that freedom in order to increase safety overall. There are some freedoms that are worth giving up in order to promote safety.
Why is the freedom to bear arms so important to Americans that they sacrifice safety to the extent that they are willing to put up with mass shootings on a regular basis?
Freedom is important, but it comes at a price, and sometimes the price isn't worth paying.
Because authoritarian countries don't have their fair share of violence, right? Because Europeans can't just go get a truck and run over people. The whole idea that authoritarianism gives you safety is false. It psychologically destroys your population and ultimately leads to more suffering. Just look at Russians if you want a living proof. Freedom is the natural and fundamental state of human beings and anyone trying to take that away is a danger to humanity.
@@EhKurd There is no such thing as total freedom, there are always rules that govern our existence, whether it be hunger or gravity. There are many rules made by people that I'm sure you would agree with. For example most societies implement a rule that forbids a person from having sex with a child. Is that not a good rule?
Why is it that there are a huge number of homicides in the USA, and a relatively tiny number in European countries?
According to this website, the USA has the fourth highest murder statistic in the world. interestingworldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/murder-rate-by-country
A vehicle is a very inconvenient murder weapon. It's very expensive, you need a license, there are many locations that are inaccessible and it's slow so your victim could survive by jumping out of the way.
Or you could go to a supermarket, load up a trolley full of guns and ammo, and whistle your way down to a nearby church, office or high school where you let loose a hail of fury upon those idiots who didn't take you seriously.
The purpose of the firearm *is* safety in the case that it becomes time to revolt against the government.
But pretending it's just about freedom here's the truth that no one is willing to admit:
The price of mass shootings is *dirt* cheap. 12 people died of mass shootings this year. They're a negligible chunk of homocides and homocides are a small chunk of deaths. If freedom isn't worth 12 deaths a year in a country where 655,000 people die annually of heart disease then it's not worth anything.
@@combat3252 on what grounds would you call for an armed revolution?
@@ChrisHaupt
The government totally being in the pockets of special interests and all democratic channels (other than violent revolution) being ineffective at thwarting it
Major politicians aligning themselves with rioters
Massive eroding of our rights (MAYBE half of the bill of rights is intact)
Our last president (and this is not a defense of the current president) passed a law that allowed the indefinite detention of US citizens without trial.
Police that are completely unaccountable when they murder innocent civillians
Both major parties rigging their primary elections making it so very few non status-quo politicians even make it to general elections
The government refusing to use its anti trust powers at all, making it so Disney is somehow allowed to own a major news network (ABC) while also lobbying congress and while also owning what....5/6 of the highest grossing movies every year for the past few years? Same can be said for Jeff Bezos owning Wapo. Same can be said with Time warner owning both CNN and being an ISP. How we deal with Amazon and Disney and the ISPs are serious political issues and when they control both the government and the press I have a hard time believing peaceful solutions will work.
I'm waiting for the ,,If You Support Free Software, You Should Support Anarchy" response video.
tbh the free software movement really does strike a socialist/communist chord but I could see how libertarians (anarcho-communists) would be drawn to it as well.
@@glohkamp Libertarians are not anarcho-coms but Ancaps (myself included). Annarcho-communism is oxymoron
@@gumerk.7721 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-communism
@@gumerk.7721 Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron, Capitalism creates hierarchies.
@@givlupi2686 Hierarchies doesnt mean absence of anarchy, because anarchy it's about avoiding big centralized government
Great video, but I have just one problem: *Liberal ≭ Communist*
"Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary." - Karl Marx, London, 1850.
I think he's just being sarcastic with the word, implying that when inevitably a state or country actually becomes communist, the people will no longer be able to bear arms.
Different subjects that needed to be handled in different ways. You can't compare a hammer to a gun, just check the statics on how much people die by gun compared with people that due by hammer and you see that guns are problematic. This also apply to free software, how much people is harmed by software? Can't compare, and if you need a gun for security, the problem is with the government that can't provide it for you.
Lol, no guns states are communists states, is this a 1st of April?
This is the moment you learn something
You've lost me DT. Your other videos show some understanding of Linux. This video shows your complete lack of understanding of everything else.
So true :'/
I had to roll my eyes at "communist states." To which states were you referring to, exactly?
Illinois probably, very strict restrictions for citizens
As a millennial from the Netherlands i cannot even imagine that my country has gun rights. For me it is basically the same as speeding, the government is trying to protect its people. If you are the only one driving to fast it wouldn't really matter, but if everyone is driving to fast it becomes dangerous. If only you had a gun to protect your self it wouldn't really matter, but if everyone had gun it becomes dangerous. It is obvious that in the US there is way more gun violence then here in Europe because not many people here have a gun. That said i do think gun regulations and traffic rules have an impact on my freedom and that life would be more fun without them.
well they aren't working very well if i say so myself we seem to have had a lot of them lately but hey the incidents with automatic rifles and the assassinations in the big cities and the hand grenades being found in front of the stores in Amsterdam have dropped since covid
@@MisterCOM true, but I believe that allowing normal citizens to buy guns would not have stopped most of these incidents.
@@stijnvanzeggeren8637 it might have not but i believe it also wouldn't necessarily have created more of them but that is not to say that i want zero laws regarding guns in general that is a given for a country like the Netherlands but we do need to take a look at our laws regarding self defense
That thumbnail, instead of being a clickbait, was not even a trailer of your arsenal.
I didn't know guns are Arch based :)
Ok let's try that "a tool is just a tool" argument with something like opioids. Heroin is just a tool right? "Heroin doesn't kill people, people kill themselves".
I agree with the main point of the video but find that argument to be bizarre and arbitrary.
on the surface your argument seems strong however it is deeply flawed, I imagine on purpose. If you wish to look at opioids as tools then that would move them into the realm of medicine, when used properly in the management of pain they can prove quite beneficial, when they are misused then a problem comes in. That would be how to frame the argument of a tool is a tool in terms of opiods. Your framing would allow for the banning of knives, hammers, baseball bats, pretty much anything that has done something to harm someone. Oh let's not forget sugar. But I shouldn't worry the police state you dream of will keep you nice and safe I'm sure.
Yah....I was about to say that!
Jim Duchow let’s ban water too, there were some instances of people dying from drinking water in excess
@@jimduchow1580 Sounds like you are changing the definition to fit your views. Opiods are tool which treat pain and guns are tools which kill people (or animals). Killing people is not a side effect or something.
Also your strawman is ridicolous as I specifically stated that I agree with the point of the video: I thing having a gun should be a right. I just don't think that the "tool" argument really shows any hipocrisy, that's all I'm saying
LOL. What a perfectly terrible argument you make, Georgij. Are you advocating for getting rid of opioids?
While opioids are misused, they are _incredibly_ useful in medical fields.
Likewise firearms are misused, but they are _incredibly_ useful for personal protection and hunting.
the way you were holding that 22 rifle made me nervous
I live in a country with no 2nd amendment or anything similar, I just like distro hopping and tinkering.
I recently saw a guy going at another guys skull with a hammer, he missed and hit him on his back. If it were a gun in his hand I don't know if there would be any second chances, lives would have been ruined. They were brothers.
Guns are scary, I say this humbly, the parts in my country where guns are widespread, people get shot, if the innocent people living there were armed, people would still get shot. People can get very crazy very quickly.
That being said I appreciate the perspective you show with the examples that you give where a gun would be necessary. Thank you.
Btw I use arch.
It's a proven fact....That States that allow conceal carry, have lower criminal rates vs non concealed carry states.
@@jeffherdzina6716 that feels counterintuitive. Wouldn't visible guns discourage violent stuff as compared to where people are hiding or concealing their guns? If you are hiding a gun and someone jumps you you shoot, if you have one on a holster hanging out wouldn't criminals be discouraged? What is concealed carry exactly?
@@ChitrakChattopadhyay The Beauty of concealed carry is that the person trying to rob you, has no clue as to how many people are carrying a weapon. And, You can carry more than one firearm.
In large groups, this puts the "bad guy" in a bad situation. Trust me ...where I live a lot of people carry. And even now we have Open carry in my State.
@@jeffherdzina6716 I wos wondering about this, if enough good people have guns things become very different.
@@ChitrakChattopadhyay Where I live a lot of Men ..and Women carry weapons for protection. In fact the last time I was in a gun store. half of the people that were looking and buying a firearm, were women.
I'm Brazilian, we don't have constitutional rights to bear arms here in Brazil, getting auth to have and bear arms here are hard, expensive and you have to PROVE you need to have an handgun, you can't have militar grade stuff like rifles.
Don't let this happens with you guys! Criminals can have all the guns and for the citizen whats remain is fear, fear from criminals, fear from police, fear from the state.
Don't let the the state control you, politicians and the state should be afraind it's ppl, not the opositie , mantain you right to bear arms, don't let anyone take it from you, because this wouldn't be good for you, your nation and your family.
When you lost a right it's hard to get it back, here not even the Brazilian President, Bolsonaro, could restore our right to bear arms!
Has anyone noticed DT’s sub count has decreased from 80.1 to 79.9 since this video has been published? Very controversial
I'm not really sure if you should connect foss to gun rights. It's already hard to own a gun legally, should you soften the process so that everyone can own guns? I don't know?
"I've never heard anyone to suggest hammers kill people." well the primary function of a hammer is to hit with blunt force, and a gun is for shooting. Guns are tools built to harm the living, like ducks. Guns kill people and guns don't kill are both fine statements, it's just an easy term to use for the sake of promoting/demoting a policy.
When it comes to this, I'm more concerned in how they acquired the guns, and the effectivity law enforcement. It's just ridiculously stupid that the first reaction is to remove a 'right' and not study how to prevent gun violence or violence in general. If people are violent and you forcibly remove their guns, they will just continue with violence with something like knives, and if you remove the knives, then they will use pen or whatever they can. Curing only the symptoms of a disease is not a very smart way of thinking.
Again I don't think this should be something to do with foss. Guns are not open for everyone since you need a license. Foss is for everyone, license not included.
guns and hammers are both tools, its real simple
a better example would be a drill and a gun: a drill is designed to make a precise hole right here, a gun is designed to make a less precise hole over there
obviously you can make even more precise holes with something like a drill press, and there is equivalency there as well
@@pewpshidda1619 I don't think you understand my point, guns are tools that are primarily made for harming, that's why "guns kill" is a fine statement.
Drills on the other hand is not designed to harm, because it is a highly inefficient tool for that matter.
Anyways, whether or not a tool or an object is lethal or not does not necessarily mean you should ban them. So when someone says "guns kill" my reply would be "why should I care, that's not even that important of an argument."
Absolutely based. Although real communists would probably mostly agree with this. Liberal ≠ communist. The funny thing about liberals is they don't realize that both actual Marxists AND libertarians/individualists believe in the right to bear arms. Political ideology-wise, banning guns is in the minority.
Coming for Linux videos, seems you went off track... Or maybe you wanted to show off your toys? Anyway you lost me!
Hey DT, I respect your right to wear guns, but disagree with the link you make with free software movement. I understand the freedom of speech and freedom to think, but don't think this video is good publicity for your movement and your channel. But this is only my opinion, as far as I have the right to express myself. Cheers
Hey DT, Im looking to buy a weapon, what is you recommendation for shooting government bombing drones?
Nice to see DT get comfortable enough to share what is dear to him. I hope that DT tries to keep politics to a minimum on the channel but once a blue moon is fine.
Wow, this was very surreal. It was also slightly terrifying. My first instinct was that it was a joke, but those looked like real guns.
Even if this is meant as a joke, I am having a hard time understanding why or how this fits in with a channel about technology and software, and I certainly see no relationship between gun ownership and free software.
I strongly disagree with nearly every word in this video.
Your irrational fear of inanimate objects is not an argument.
@@thecriticalg Not making an argument, just expressing how far off track this content is for this channel, and how little it has to do with the tech stuff he talks about normally.
I also happen to strongly disagree with every word he says, but I do not think this is the right place to have such a conversation.
And no, I am not afraid of guns. I am afraid of human beings who have guns, carry them around, and tell me I should have one. Those people are scary.
I like guns but couldn't agree less with the argument in this video either.
The freedom loving states: who try their best to abolish the freedom of women to do an abortion, or the freedom of drug users to take drugs, or the freedom of everyone to have a decent health insurance (and not die). But. The right to carry a gun openly in public is a fundamental freedom.
"Btw, I use AK-47" :)
I read this as AK-47 for some reason
I wonder what's going on in the US.
In Australia, few of us have guns and there are fewer mass shootings.
One of the reasons I don’t want to visit the USA is because of the ownership of guns there and the attitudes towards them. It seems bizarre to me to even hear someone say “everyone should own a gun”.
Videos like this remind why I should be grateful for living in a country without so many guns.
Edit: I must say DT, even the thumbnail for this video seems bizarre from my perspective. The expression on your face, and the size of that rifle in your hand, is intimidating.
No hard feelings though. I’m just expressing my opinion. Your content is great. 👍
Than you should stay there.
@@jeffherdzina6716 ah come on, the dude was pretty respectful. seems like a nice guy who doesnt like pewpews. no big deal.
@@pureheroin9902 LOL Hey I'm just saving him from a long flight over the Pacific to here.
Aren't you all literally locked in your house by order of the police right now?
I'm CIA it’s a public health order so that COVID-19 cases can be managed. We went from 700+ cases per day to only 11 yesterday. Why do you ask?
How about the freedom to own a nuclear missile? The missile is just a tool. It is somebody who presses the button. 🙄
jacob sparrow Who said the button presser not responsible? It is a very common argument from gun right defender that gun is just a tool, comparing it to something far less powerful like a knife or a baseball bat. Ignoring the impact factor would make that argument fallible.
To be honest, the fact that you need to carry a gun in order to feel safe wherever you live says more about that place rather than you and your values. If you've had to deal with looters, rioters, etc. throughout your life I can't even condemn your opinion.
It's the case in most places in the world, not all places are like japan with 99/100 of honnest people. And even like that you should have to blindly trust you government
The main purpose of the second amendment is for protection against the government itself. Think about it.
In Belgium, we don't need guns to protect us from the government. The government is stupid enough we don't have to worry about that.
@@sanderd17 you don't need to worry about your local government anymore, start worrying about the global government instead.
@@sanderd17 “the government is stupid enough” so let’s give them a monopoly on force?
I am for free software. But I disagree. I don't want guns all around me here and am glad that I live in europe. I am honestly shocked when i see that you can buy ammo and guns in a GROCERY STORE in the usa.. I support drug-decriminalization tho. If you support gun-rights. Why not go and let people buy claymores? Why not just sell armed tanks at the car dealership? Some things should be limited.. weapons are made to kill (say what you want "guns dont kill people", no indeed, but they make it a hella lot easier.. and they are litteraly invented for the purpose of killing)
Funny how he can read the entirety of the linux wiki but only the first part of the second amendment...
Free software save life's,guns end them...
Do you need guns to protect you from guns? Time to unsub.
I never thought I would see this on my recommendations page! 😂
As a rule free and open source software doesn't get use to do mass murder... Gun violence in the US rampant I still remember when school shootings and mass shootings were shocking now it's something that part of regular American life... If you want gun rights stand for RESPONSIBLE gun ownership that's something the US needs again...
@jacob sparrow the problem with your 'good guy with a gin' nonsense allows the bad guy to get a gun in the first place... The question you have you ask yourself who's the better shot?
In Canada and other civilized nations we have gun control to help ensure that people with mental illness, and criminals (not sure if its all or just violent criminals) from getting guns legally. Yes criminals can still get guns but why make it easy for them?
(30 year aussie linux vet here) DT, you said it yourself. It's not the tools that are the problem, it's the people and I would agree with you on that.
But if you need guns 'just in case' to protect yourself from the people walking on your lawn, the problem is then society and people.
Most societies around the world have recognized that for the better good of society 'in general' easy access to weapons introduces an easy way to obtain an outcome that would ultimately end in death and in some cases to innocent people. So you can either bare arms or eliminate them from society. The second option has less people dying that is why most countries haven't gone down the American way.
So respectfully I disagree with you.
Was this video joke or serious? I didn't understand
I noticed the cmatrix effect on the screen behind you is lagging. Makes me wonder if it is RUclips's video compression or similar.
I find it deliciously ironic how you describe the states with more gun control as communist states. Karl Marx famously said "Under no pretext should arms and ammunitions be surrendered, any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary". Most communists, including Marx, want to be able to arm the proletariat, so to say that banning civilian owned guns is communist is palpable and a complete strawman of what communists generally believe. Most communists agree with you.
hes probably doing what many right wing people do. calling most people to the left of them commies.
come to think of it, the left call everyone fascists, so its kinda equal i suppose.
One might argue that American Communism =/= Soviet Communism.
How does the saying go? “True Communism has never been practiced before”?
@@MirrorDimly I didn't mention soviet communism, I mentioned a quote from Karl Marx, who wrote the most influential material on communist theory. Most communists agree with Marx's analysis of society, regardless of where they are from.
@@aaaaaaaaabaaaaaaaaa Sure, sure. I won't contest that. The Bolshevik revolution could not have happened without violent uprising. I'm just saying that communism seems to have different perceived connotations from country to country (as we also see in other nations such as China and North Korea).
Actually, I think non-violent felons should be allowed to keep their gun rights. If you got arrested for weed or some blow 15 years ago, you shouldn't have your gun rights taken away from you. You have a beautiful gun collection btw.
It is a statistical fact that homes with guns in them are less safe (deaths from accident, mistaken identity, suicide, "heat of passion" in an argument, etc.).
This is more of a societal problem, then it is of a tool being misused; Heat of passion isn't really an argument when people can just as easily use anything else to beat someone. Besides, tons of people use their right for protecting either their home or their loved ones, every year, in the US :)
When you are too European to understand if this is bait or just crazy bullshit
Looks like somebody got a call from the based department.
Your channel just got even cooler, I just love the enthusiasm. "Don't buy one gun, buy several!"
Thomas Jefferson once stated "every generation needs a new revolution". Gandhi taught us the use of firearms is not necessary for defending and /or improving the human condition. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi proved to the world that one can revolt by employing non-violent resistance, and, gain independence. On January 30, 1948, Gandhi's life was taken by a nut caring a concealed pistol. I have no use for owning a firearm, I can passively revolt by using free, & open-source software. I encourage everyone to join the rebellion against proprietary software.
Guns aren't tools they are weapons which can kill. Don't messed up open sources softwares with weapons please.
They are tools.
@@cannabidivarin they're weapons. Weapons designed to kill.