Last night, during a livestream from inside his home, Call of Duty trickshot specialist and former FaZe Clan member Carl Riemer pulled out a pistol. “Bitch say I ain’t got money,” he jokingly said while holding it. An open can of Coors Light beer was visible on his desk during the clip. Riemer then pulled the trigger, and to his apparent surprise, the weapon discharged a round. He has now been suspended on Twitch.
This is a good time to bring up the four rules of gun safety: Always treat guns as if they are loaded. Never point a gun at anything you aren't willing to destroy. Keep your finger off the trigger...
This is a good time to bring up the four rules of gun safety:
Always treat guns as if they are loaded.
Never point a gun at anything you aren't willing to destroy.
Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire.
I like these rules: don't have a gun unless your profession requires one don't have a gun unless your subsistence requires one don't have a gun unless you would actually be unsafe without one I...
I like these rules:
don't have a gun unless your profession requires one
don't have a gun unless your subsistence requires one
don't have a gun unless you would actually be unsafe without one
I don't think being a Twitch Streamer in Colorado, United States, qualifies for any of those.
I don't think any of your rules apply to firearm ownership at all. They are all terrible and show an ignorance of firearms and the culture surrounding them. Firearm ownership is pretty standard...
I don't think any of your rules apply to firearm ownership at all. They are all terrible and show an ignorance of firearms and the culture surrounding them.
Firearm ownership is pretty standard here in Colorado and what @Eylrid posted above you is not just some made up list, they are very serious rules that anyone with a firearm should have habit formed.
Can you specify? More so: can you argue why having a gun is essentially good and necessary in that situation? Because, you see, anytime you introduce significant risk to a system, that risk must...
I don't think any of your rules apply to firearm ownership at all. They are all terrible and show an ignorance of firearms and the culture surrounding them.
Can you specify? More so: can you argue why having a gun is essentially good and necessary in that situation? Because, you see, anytime you introduce significant risk to a system, that risk must be justified. Example: chemotherapy is extremely harsh and it can provoke a bunch of complications — that is why we only use it in certain cancer patients. Guns are devices made to efficiently exterminate lives — human or otherwise. You can polish it all you want, put it in your wall and cherish it as a piece of art or whatever. But a working firearm is a killing machine. And you know what? We should have those. But should everyone have those, in any circumstances? No, absolutely not. Some doctors should apply chemo under certain conditions, and certain groups of people should bear arms under certain conditions.
And oh, in many situations, a bunch of sensible rules for gun operation could hardly beat not having a gun at all. You can't shoot yourself in the head with a firearm that does not exist. And no training will prepare you against committing a crime of passion.
Firearm ownership is pretty standard here in Colorado and what @Eylrid posted above you is not just some made up list, they are very serious rules that anyone with a firearm should have habit formed
I could counter-argument that female genital mutilation is also a very old tradition that affected 200 million women and girls in 27 African countries in 2016.
And to quote the oldest known law code (and therefore more traditional), from 2100 BC, the Code of Ur-Nammu:
If a man violates the right of another and deflowers the virgin wife of a young man, they shall kill that male.
If a man commits a murder, that man must be killed.
If a man commits a robbery, he will be killed.
Kinda harsh, but fair, I suppose?
If a man has cut off another man's foot, he is to pay ten shekels.
It seems rather cheap for severing a foot, don't you think?
So yeah, tradition doesn't mean squat when the stakes are that high.
Regarding the appeal to majority, I can easily counter by saying many of the most genocidal regimes rose to power with great popular support, such as:
Italian Fascism
Nazi-Fascism
Maoism
Stalinism
Brazilian Military Regime
etc
Therefore, it stands to reason that the majority can be wrong — and it frequently is.
You're comparing firearm ownership to getting chemotherapy. I legitimately do not know how to respond to you while remaining civil. I will clarify though that my previous comment I was pointing...
You're comparing firearm ownership to getting chemotherapy.
I legitimately do not know how to respond to you while remaining civil.
I will clarify though that my previous comment I was pointing out that culturally, here in Colorado (and most of the US), we like guns and owning them is normal. It's no different for us than it is with any other hobby (fyi, that is an example of an appropriate comparison in this context). Firearm ownership is a hobby, its something people do for fun that has the added benefit of being for protection or hunting. You would never attack someone for owning an iphone or driving a car, same thing.
My point was not to appeal to the majority but to correct and educate you because you very clearly are ignorant of firearms and firearm culture. But after the dribble you just posted, it's clearly not worth my breath.
While I do not want to attack you as an irresponsible gun owner, and I think the chemotherapy argument is a bit of a false equivalency, there are arguments to be had that the US has suffered due...
While I do not want to attack you as an irresponsible gun owner, and I think the chemotherapy argument is a bit of a false equivalency, there are arguments to be had that the US has suffered due to it's (comparetively) unregulated gun market. Mass shootings and gun violence are absurdly high in the states compared to the rest of the western world.
I mean the fact that this is even news is dumb. What if that pile of cans was another person who would now be dead? Yes I know, responsible gun owners would be the first to say that the dude clearly had no idea how to properly handle a weapon, but why was he allowed to own one in the first place then? We don't give adults the permission to drive a vehicle without a license because it's dangerous and they can kill themselves or other people, so why are guns exempt here?
Guns can be used recreationally, and I think that you should be able to own certain guns, but only with a license. I think my country (Austria) has solved this fairly decently: Small caliber, bolt action rifles without a magazine are permitted to be purchased by anyone over 18, rifles with mags, pistols need a special license and pretty much everything else is illegal to be owned by civilians.
We also differentiate between the license to own a firearm and the license to carry a firearm in public. The former is granted after thorough psychological tests and a background check and the latter is only granted to people who have a very legitimate reason to get it, usually work related. For example, cops have such a license, but it's limited to work hours, same for security guards.
Would a system like this be impossible for the US? Responsible gun owners always claim that that they don't support idiots who don't respect guns, but if you are responsible, you can still purchase a firearm, the license is literally just a test by the state to see if you are responsible.
There should be a license required for gun ownership. At the very least people should be required to take a gun safety course. But that's politically difficult in the US, to put it mildly. The...
There should be a license required for gun ownership. At the very least people should be required to take a gun safety course. But that's politically difficult in the US, to put it mildly. The issue goes back to the founding of our country: The founders won our independence with guns and they saw them as a means to fight back against tyranny. Hence the second amendment protecting gun ownership, and guns being seen as patriotic. Since gun ownership is seen as protection against government tyranny, letting the government control them in any way is anathema. When the government inevitably comes to round us all up, so the story goes, they will use the gun registries to know who to go after.
Since that's what half (give or take) of our nation believes, and a major talking point of one of the parties, meaningful reform is off the table.
There are guns outside the United States. We know what they are, how they operate, and the possible consequences of their use. Additionally, the relationship of Americans with guns is very well...
There are guns outside the United States. We know what they are, how they operate, and the possible consequences of their use.
Additionally, the relationship of Americans with guns is very well known throughout the world. There's no need to educate us foreigners on that matter.
We know guns are a hobby that many Americans consider to be harmless and fun. That is not the point. Culture is not the point.
The point is that it stands to reason that they shouldn't. Not because guns are inherently evil, but because in the vast majority of the cases the positives simply do not outweigh the negatives.
Also, cars can kill, but this is not what they were designed to accomplish. That is relevant in my view.
And the death toll of iPhones is probably much lower than that of firearms, so I don't think that's a good comparison either.
You may, of course, disagree. No need to be uncivil.
To be fair, I looked at the article and he has a response video, which is surprisingly honest and sincere. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVFKjEsdH90 He clearly admits he fucked up, and doesn't...
To be fair, I looked at the article and he has a response video, which is surprisingly honest and sincere.
So how is everyone else doing today?
This is a good time to bring up the four rules of gun safety:
I like these rules:
I don't think being a Twitch Streamer in Colorado, United States, qualifies for any of those.
I don't think any of your rules apply to firearm ownership at all. They are all terrible and show an ignorance of firearms and the culture surrounding them.
Firearm ownership is pretty standard here in Colorado and what @Eylrid posted above you is not just some made up list, they are very serious rules that anyone with a firearm should have habit formed.
Can you specify? More so: can you argue why having a gun is essentially good and necessary in that situation? Because, you see, anytime you introduce significant risk to a system, that risk must be justified. Example: chemotherapy is extremely harsh and it can provoke a bunch of complications — that is why we only use it in certain cancer patients. Guns are devices made to efficiently exterminate lives — human or otherwise. You can polish it all you want, put it in your wall and cherish it as a piece of art or whatever. But a working firearm is a killing machine. And you know what? We should have those. But should everyone have those, in any circumstances? No, absolutely not. Some doctors should apply chemo under certain conditions, and certain groups of people should bear arms under certain conditions.
And oh, in many situations, a bunch of sensible rules for gun operation could hardly beat not having a gun at all. You can't shoot yourself in the head with a firearm that does not exist. And no training will prepare you against committing a crime of passion.
So you appealed to tradition above ("culture"), and now you hinted at an appeal to majority
I could counter-argument that female genital mutilation is also a very old tradition that affected 200 million women and girls in 27 African countries in 2016.
And to quote the oldest known law code (and therefore more traditional), from 2100 BC, the Code of Ur-Nammu:
Kinda harsh, but fair, I suppose?
It seems rather cheap for severing a foot, don't you think?
So yeah, tradition doesn't mean squat when the stakes are that high.
Regarding the appeal to majority, I can easily counter by saying many of the most genocidal regimes rose to power with great popular support, such as:
Therefore, it stands to reason that the majority can be wrong — and it frequently is.
You're comparing firearm ownership to getting chemotherapy.
I legitimately do not know how to respond to you while remaining civil.
I will clarify though that my previous comment I was pointing out that culturally, here in Colorado (and most of the US), we like guns and owning them is normal. It's no different for us than it is with any other hobby (fyi, that is an example of an appropriate comparison in this context). Firearm ownership is a hobby, its something people do for fun that has the added benefit of being for protection or hunting. You would never attack someone for owning an iphone or driving a car, same thing.
My point was not to appeal to the majority but to correct and educate you because you very clearly are ignorant of firearms and firearm culture. But after the dribble you just posted, it's clearly not worth my breath.
While I do not want to attack you as an irresponsible gun owner, and I think the chemotherapy argument is a bit of a false equivalency, there are arguments to be had that the US has suffered due to it's (comparetively) unregulated gun market. Mass shootings and gun violence are absurdly high in the states compared to the rest of the western world.
I mean the fact that this is even news is dumb. What if that pile of cans was another person who would now be dead? Yes I know, responsible gun owners would be the first to say that the dude clearly had no idea how to properly handle a weapon, but why was he allowed to own one in the first place then? We don't give adults the permission to drive a vehicle without a license because it's dangerous and they can kill themselves or other people, so why are guns exempt here?
Guns can be used recreationally, and I think that you should be able to own certain guns, but only with a license. I think my country (Austria) has solved this fairly decently: Small caliber, bolt action rifles without a magazine are permitted to be purchased by anyone over 18, rifles with mags, pistols need a special license and pretty much everything else is illegal to be owned by civilians.
We also differentiate between the license to own a firearm and the license to carry a firearm in public. The former is granted after thorough psychological tests and a background check and the latter is only granted to people who have a very legitimate reason to get it, usually work related. For example, cops have such a license, but it's limited to work hours, same for security guards.
Would a system like this be impossible for the US? Responsible gun owners always claim that that they don't support idiots who don't respect guns, but if you are responsible, you can still purchase a firearm, the license is literally just a test by the state to see if you are responsible.
There should be a license required for gun ownership. At the very least people should be required to take a gun safety course. But that's politically difficult in the US, to put it mildly. The issue goes back to the founding of our country: The founders won our independence with guns and they saw them as a means to fight back against tyranny. Hence the second amendment protecting gun ownership, and guns being seen as patriotic. Since gun ownership is seen as protection against government tyranny, letting the government control them in any way is anathema. When the government inevitably comes to round us all up, so the story goes, they will use the gun registries to know who to go after.
Since that's what half (give or take) of our nation believes, and a major talking point of one of the parties, meaningful reform is off the table.
There are guns outside the United States. We know what they are, how they operate, and the possible consequences of their use.
Additionally, the relationship of Americans with guns is very well known throughout the world. There's no need to educate us foreigners on that matter.
We know guns are a hobby that many Americans consider to be harmless and fun. That is not the point. Culture is not the point.
The point is that it stands to reason that they shouldn't. Not because guns are inherently evil, but because in the vast majority of the cases the positives simply do not outweigh the negatives.
Also, cars can kill, but this is not what they were designed to accomplish. That is relevant in my view.
And the death toll of iPhones is probably much lower than that of firearms, so I don't think that's a good comparison either.
You may, of course, disagree. No need to be uncivil.
Alright, this clearly isn't a productive discussion (arguments on this subject almost never are). Both of you move on, please. @EscReality as well
I was literally stating that I wasn't gonna participate. =)
That’s okay.
This is modern art. All of this
To be fair, I looked at the article and he has a response video, which is surprisingly honest and sincere.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVFKjEsdH90
He clearly admits he fucked up, and doesn't make any excuses about it. Makes it less of a "lol stupid twitch people" thing
Oh yea, he fucked up big time and he clearly knows it.