วีดีโอ

Thanks! I think my drones are cool too!

Thank you.

Thank you.

There is a separation of people and state considering the ruling class is very distinct from those they rule over. The indoctrination they receive is the mind numbing/dumbing "education" they receive in the form of useless worksheets, quizzes, tests, projects, etc.. These worksheets just mindlessly have you regurgitate information and indoctrinate you into having a very mediocre mind as a result. One that tends not to question authority. Also the consider the fact the way the school covers various topics like social studies teaching us that we need a government. Not to mention saying the pledge of ALLEGIANCE which is basically making kids say their loyal to the state. Please don't tell me to run for office, I hate when they say that. That's not what you tell someone who wants to fix a problem in society is to run for government. That doesn't make any sense considering 1. Chances are the government caused the problem. 2. The government will only perpetuate the problem. Private schools wouldn't really pander to certain demographics unless they have some kind of theme going on. With Christians there are Christian schools and that makes sense to have the Bible as part of the curriculum. That's the school for after all it's a CHRISTIAN school. That doesn't go against freedom of religion because that's what the school is supposed to be about. A violation of freedom of religion would be if a public school had that since it's supposed to be free of religion. You didn't prove capitalism to be bad. All you did was mention the concept of companies which are often supported one way or the other by GOVERNMENT which pollute the environment. The Environment Protection Agency is known to be crud when protecting the environment and companies that pollute it tend to be given a slap on the wrists by governments when doing so. I mean look at the oil companies like BP that pollute and get a slap on the wrist. Does government regulation seem that legit now? Companies that pollute can be held accountable by private courts as well as by the people they pollute. *the state is the powerhouse behind tyranny? do you remember the catholic church in the middle ages? do you remember the Dutch East India Company? and sure, governments can be tyrannical. i'm not denying that. but if you really don't like tyranny so much, get rid of churches, states, and companies. what are we left with? communism* Yeah and who did the Catholic Church suck up to? The government! That's why they want to use GOVERNMENT to force religion on people. The Dutch East India Company had Royal ties too, did YOU remember that? Without a government what can a church do to make you be Christian? Have a preacher yell at you? Seems like it'd be much better if they had cops with guns go after you for not being Christian. A church without government is just a place to be Christian it's not a threat. If it were a threat on it's own people could just fight back but if it has a government backing it up that's a lot harder. Why would I get rid of companies that's how people make money and jobs you're really not making any sense. Communism literally is government that seizes the means of production so what are you talking about? Communism isn't getting rid of government it's giving it steroids. *main things i want you to do:* *1. explain why anarcho capitalism would be better/less tyrannical than anarcho communism,* *2. tell me what sorts of indoctrination is going on at public schools,* *3. tell me how, without regulatory bodies like governments, companies won't cause ecological collapse/massive subjugation/terrible practices. and that'll be hard lemme tell you cause even with governments they're still able to get away with some of that* 1. Anarcho-capitalism allows people to earn a living as they see if as long as it's consensual. Anarcho-communism (which should just be called communism since it's really not anarchy it has a state called communism after all) makes the state control the economy which makes it inflexible to consumer needs at stifled by state bureaucracy. 2. I already that above the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs from the top. 3. Governments make it easier to get away with environmental violations because they either give you a slap on the wrists for violating what shoddy regulations they have or they just don't and are even willing to look the other way via lobbying funding. If you want real accountability get rid of government. That way you won't have the propping up of bad companies by any ruling class. You could hire a private court to deal with bad companies or drive them out of business. If things get really bad you could fight the bad companies off of your property. Look maybe you're just a really slow learner but you clearly drank so much of the Koolaid that it's hard to tell if you can ever get off of statism at all. I mean they've got you really good. You're the most statist statist that I've ever met actually. I'm not saying it's impossible for you to let go of a ruling class but it's definitely gonna be hard.

​@@anancapcat4221do you want to know why education is like that? because funding for public schools is criminally low and whether or not they get funding is based on factors that prioritize a system that views test scores as the only metric for success. do you want to know how to solve this, like every other country does? fund them. fund them via the government. like every other country does. this is an america specific problem, and all the other countries have governments. "Also the consider the fact the way the school covers various topics like social studies teaching us that we need a government. Not to mention saying the pledge of ALLEGIANCE which is basically making kids say their loyal to the state. " well, if i recall, my social studies curriculum said anything about needing a government. it explained past empires, how their societies worked (which included how their governments worked, yes, but not an endorsement of their government by any means) and the modern history of the united states. this is all history. it said nothing of the sort. i don't live in Texas, by the way, so my experience is probably different from yours. "Please don't tell me to run for office, I hate when they say that. That's not what you tell someone who wants to fix a problem in society is to run for government. That doesn't make any sense considering 1. Chances are the government caused the problem. 2. The government will only perpetuate the problem." uhhhh, okay, give me an example of a problem which could not be solved by running for office and then changing the legislature or whatever to fix said problem. like schooling, for example. let's say you want more funding. if you campaign on a message of funding education for all and hiring better teachers and such and such, and then get elected, there's a good chance you could then bring the issue to the federal government and solve the problem. "Private schools wouldn't really pander to certain demographics unless they have some kind of theme going on. With Christians there are Christian schools and that makes sense to have the Bible as part of the curriculum. That's the school for after all it's a CHRISTIAN school. That doesn't go against freedom of religion because that's what the school is supposed to be about. A violation of freedom of religion would be if a public school had that since it's supposed to be free of religion." so, first of all, it does go against the freedom of religion. that child did not consent to being indoctrinated into that religion. the parents chose the school, not the child. so boom, private schools are still doing indoctrination. "You didn't prove capitalism to be bad. All you did was mention the concept of companies which are often supported one way or the other by GOVERNMENT which pollute the environment. The Environment Protection Agency is known to be crud when protecting the environment and companies that pollute it tend to be given a slap on the wrists by governments when doing so. I mean look at the oil companies like BP that pollute and get a slap on the wrist. Does government regulation seem that legit now?" buddy. okay. you don't seem to get this. if the government imploded one day, would every company and corporation just suddenly go 'woops, no government, guess i'll die?' no. no, obviously not. btw, the reason the EPA sucks at protecting the government is because of: 1. dumb presidents who, seeking the goal of ECONOMIC growth, slash funding/power to the EPA, and 2. lobbying from COMPANIES in order to make restrictions more lenient. either way, let's say the EPA does nothing at all. companies are still polluting. they don't pollute more because the EPA exists, so there's no reason not to have the EPA. "Companies that pollute can be held accountable by private courts as well as by the people they pollute." watch Boy Boy's video on the actions of Chevron in the Amazon. they basically bribed and lawyered their way into not having to do anything. you underestimate the sliminess of companies. also what does the court do if the company just refuses to go to trial? revolt? woops, the multi-trillion dollar oil magnate had some contracts with military companies and now anyone who approaches an oil rig gets blown up by tanks. "Yeah and who did the Catholic Church suck up to? The government! That's why they want to use GOVERNMENT to force religion on people. The Dutch East India Company had Royal ties too, did YOU remember that?" you seem to have missed the question. i said, get rid of companies, religion, and government in order to get rid of tyranny. what is this system called? communism. if you really want no tyranny, do a communism. "1. Anarcho-capitalism allows people to earn a living as they see if as long as it's consensual. Anarcho-communism (which should just be called communism since it's really not anarchy it has a state called communism after all) makes the state control the economy which makes it inflexible to consumer needs at stifled by state bureaucracy." communism has no state. that's not communism if it has a central state. what state controls the economy? the people own the means of production. also, learn about neo-slavery. also quick counterexample: i pay you and give you a corporate residence, but pay you company dollars (real companies actually did this in the US) that can only be spent at company stores. since it's not accepted anywhere else, you're forced to live here, work here, and do everything we say. you want to leave to work at a new rival company? what new rival company? we just set our prices really low and everyone bought from us and they went bankrupt. "3. Governments make it easier to get away with environmental violations because they either give you a slap on the wrists for violating what shoddy regulations they have or they just don't and are even willing to look the other way via lobbying funding." lobbying funding from? companies. that seems like tyranny, doesn't it? also, at least a slap on the wrist is a punishment. not doing anything is always gonna be worse. you've failed to prove this point. "If you want real accountability get rid of government. That way you won't have the propping up of bad companies by any ruling class. You could hire a private court to deal with bad companies or drive them out of business. If things get really bad you could fight the bad companies off of your property." hire a private court? (refer to example above) with what money? fight them? with what weapons? and even if i have weapons, they probably have bigger ones, since they have more money. i don't like states, buddy. i think the ideal society is stateless. however, having a stateless society with the current system of capitalism we have now is a terrible idea, and since the idea of all companies being abolished and all governments going with them is incredibly lofty, i advocate for the next best thing, a form of socialism which does include a government and limited capitalistic output but which gives every citizen a social safety net and prioritizes equality.

I know right? But I had to take the risks to get that border wall up as soon as possible which I eventually finished!

Reponses 1 & 2: How does this sound like communism? I'm referring to the working man meaning the civilian who works. I'm not getting into that proletariat vs bourgeoisie junk. quick note: I'm just talking about employed civilians whether they be employees or employers. Minimum wage should only be increased if it's done via the free market. If it's done by government mandate then prices increase, shifts get reduced, jobs get cut, businesses get cut, etc. If government buts out of the way there can be plenty of competition to pay people better if one company doesn't so all companies have an incentive to pay their employees well. quick note 2: A decent amount do if they control how much currency is in circulation. This is why currency should be decentralized like with bitcoin otherwise your money is at the mercy of the elite rather than being managed carefully via the free market. quick note 3: Some politicians aren't elected like supreme court judges so so much for government by the people. Also even for the politicians elected by the people that doesn't make them legitimate either. quick note 4: I can't the answer that for now at least. quick note 5: Politicians don't provide that they just legislate it. It's the market that provides abortions, roads whatever material good you have. quick note 6: In addition to the bad assignments just the way the school is structed is indoctrinating like having to get to class via when the the bell sounds. It's conditioning kids to have their schedule controlled by authority. Also having to ask when to go to the bathroom, having to have certain classes, not being able to leave when you want, etc.. is conditioning you to just obey. quick note 7: It's not work if they legislate everything. The work is the people running the businesses to provide people with goods and services. The free market can do all the organizing and guidance the politicians just make that so much harder. quick note 8: Tim Walz just wants to take away guns as does Kamala and she just wants to (and already has) lock parents up for truancy as well as people who have taken cannabis, she nearly got someone innocent unalived by the unalive penalty due to not wanted evidence showing their innocence to be shown) she's a horrible speaker since she uses word salad statements like "Unburdened by what has been." as well as repeating stuff like "I grew up in a middle class family.", she laughs so condescendingly, etc. These guys are tools. quick note 9: I heard the money is drying up for Norway based on the fact it's a welfare state. Also there's no reason a free market system couldn't be used to employee people out of poverty. quick note 10: You can't just send everyone who steals people's homes to a place because that just incentivizes them to keep squatting for one. Also if homeowners were allowed to get rid of them this junk wouldn't happen anymore. quick note 11: Repealing political laws requires that you have to have it up to a vote which isn't a guarantee for it to work. I shouldn't have it be up to a vote to get my rights back. quick note 12: How is civilians building infrastructure sound like communism? It's just private companies building it, communism calls for government agencies to be in charge of that.

@@anancapcat4221 i literally googled "does increasing minimum wage increase prices," and the first result said that quote "By looking at changes in restaurant food pricing during the period of 1978-2015, MacDonald and Nilsson find that prices rose by just 0.36 percent for every 10 percent increase in the minimum wage, which is only about half the size reported in previous studies. They also observe that small minimum wage increases do not lead to higher prices and may actually reduce prices. Furthermore, it is also possible that small minimum wage increases could lead to increased employment in low-wage labor markets." so i'm gonna believe the studies on this one. okay in general i just want to say if you're gonna be an anarchist, why an anarcho-capitalist? capitalism clearly does not work. i shouldn't need to prove this to you - the cost of living, the environmental crisis, the enormous power of massive companies and how powerless governments are to stop them. so why not strive for another system, like communism? also, do you really think there isn't a proletariat and bourgeoisie? wage laborers do significantly more work than their bosses, like in construction. why not have said laborers own the business? aka, the means of production? hmmm, you went to school in Texas, right? where the public school budget is really low? i can tell you that where i went to school, we could go to the bathroom without asking (as long as we didn't leave for the entire period), could have electives (the required classes are required because you need to know how to read, how to write, how to understand the literature you read, how the world works and math because they're all crucial things everyone should know,) and could leave if you had a good reason. also, i really love how it just goes completely over your head that this is EXACTLY how companies work. ever heard of a 9-5? you can't leave when you want (otherwise you risk pay loss/firing,) have to bow down to authority (your boss,) have to do certain things (hr classes, for example, or meetings,) and have hardly any control. in a system such as, say, communism, this wouldn't be the case, since you'd have workplace democracy. so thank you for giving me a great example of how companies control our lives. seems like companies and governments suck, eh? what's the solution? communism! i'm not gonna start arguing with you about gun control, but if you can look at the gun violence in America versus other countries and say that the solution is to have even more guns, then there's something wrong with you. and you guys always say "ahh, we must fight against government tyranny!" when the government has fighter jets and bombs and tanks and you stand literally zero chance. (by the way, in ancap, the biggest companies would just do the same thing, and we'd be right back here.) but anyways, if the phrase "Unburdened by what has been" is word salad to you, i feel very bad for you. 'unburdened by what has been' dumbed down means 'in spite of our past mistakes." hell, that's actually more words than her phrase. how is this word salad? also making fun of the way someone laughs is just stupid. do i need to whip out the ad hominem? also the reason she says "i grew up in a middle class family" all the time is because the average voter doesn't know jack about policy and just votes for whoever promises the most money. that's how we got the cheeto in office again, whose economic policies actively harm the economy. her claim of being middle class was to pander to undecided proletariat voters. also, my point still stands: kamala would be infinitely better than trump. you've basically just showed me how ignorant you are of her policies by not mentioning a single one. all economies throughout the world struggled after the pandemic and even into 2024. i looked up "is norway's economy failing" and got two pages, both from the norwegian statistics website, with one confirming that yes, the economy had been worsening, but this loss was mostly in the electric and fishing industries, which varied because of climate, and the other page said that forecasts were looking up for 2025 and 2026. so i guess we'll see. you fail to see my point about squatters. i was employing a technique known as sarcasm. squatters are not 'stealing homes.' they have to squat because they have no home and without shelter you can't really survive. if you just give them a house, like norway does, they won't squat. kicking a squatter out of your house at best leads to a cold and miserable squatter and at worst leads to someone dead. but if the repeal is up to a vote, and the vote is decided by the people, then you can't really blame the politicans, can you? communism is a stateless society. literally google it. there are different schools, yes, but there is not any state in the way that you're talking about. there is no state in communism. got it? anyways, civilians building infrastructure sounds like communism since, when you strip it back, who are these people building the infrastructure for? their community. right. so why do we need a company? just let the workers own it themselves. here are my new questions for you: if government is abolished, will not the CEOs and most successful businessmen then become the new ruling class? wouldn't this lead to the same subjugation that we have under governments? communism has no government. let's dumb it down and say that the only difference between ancap and communism is that in communism the workers own the means of production. which of these systems is better for the working class individual? why? i posit that the workplace democracy is better than the workplace feudalism we have today.

So you make a patronizing comment devoid of any intellectual value and you expect me to take it seriously? Like why didn't you just keep it as a compliment about protect zomboid if you don't even want to spend 5 minutes learning about anarcho-capitalism? What are your political beliefs anyways?

@anancapcat4221 Yeah i think anarcho capitalism is an ideology so stupid and self defeating that proponents of it are either joking or corrosively dumb. Im fine with riling up the zoo animals every once in a while.

Okay look dude, you're getting a lot of stuff wrong. Gun control doesn't work because see criminals don't follow gun laws and gun laws just leave law abiding people unarmed at the mercy criminals. Criminals - Don't follow gun laws + Lawful People - Follow gun laws = Criminals having the advantage over lawful people. I don't care about Trump, I'm an ancap remember? He can do whatever he claims is "educational choice" when it's really just government policy in disguise. Free choice of education just means you get to choose how to educate yourself? Is that really hard for you to understand? The crime rate isn't related to how many police officers there are to civilians. It's related to how well the people can protect themselves against criminals as well as if there are any dumb laws like the drug war that enable crime. Nothing is free the costs for education are gonna come in the form of taxes. That's not free. And happiest people how? Can you really quantify happiness? As for Norways welfare state isn't sustainable, has high taxes and can be taken advantage of. As for your closing statement the "I have better things to do." really wasn't necessary but that's for the approval of my message at the end.

@@anancapcat4221 if GC don't work, why does Norway have such little gun crime? i'll tell you - not just cause of gun control, but because their government actually supports the populus and provides basic necessities, which drives down crime. basically my point is that we should strive to be more Norway than we are now.

That's because Norway is full of Norwegians. A generally selfless, kind and productive people. That is why different countries with the same gun laws can have wildly different rates of violence. The sad truth is that Race is a huge factor, and the fact that we can't openly discuss that, is dishonestly sad.

@@8yerbrain there are many more reasons why nations with the same gun laws could have different rates of gun violence, such as their economic and social policy. what are you saying? that norwegians are ethnically superior??

@@lordernietheduck I am saying Race is the missing factor that needs to be discussed openly.

What do you mean?

How do you not get freedom when you homeschool it's literally just learning at your home, at your own pace, what you want to learn! That's it! Why can't you get this? What's so not freedom about learning at your entire discretion? I never said I was anti-union I'm against unions that people are forced to join. Any union should be voluntary. People abusing their kids isn't a flaw with the whole concept of homeschooling it's a flaw with parenting. Abuse can happen literally anywhere and school is for education so stop acting like it should be this oversight for abuse. Yes I believe abuse should be reported and intervened in but acting like just a way of learning is flawed because abuse can happen is ridiculous. A lot of abuse happens right at public school and some teachers straight up ignore students that are being abused at home. Homeschooling is not necessarily the parent educating the child since you can buy an online curriculum. Also even if the parent homeschools their kid like what's the problem? Like isn't it good for a parent to be able to spend time with their kid rather than ship them off to strangers to educate them? You don't realize that good parents can have their kids taken away? Bet you never heard of the parents that got their daughter taken away just because they smoked pot. They were competent loving parents but CPS somehow caught wind that they took pot so they took the kids away. And guess what happened? The kid was put with an abusive foster mother that straight up unalived her and ironically was on cocaine which is way worse than pot. CPS isn't necessarily on your side okay? You need to read up more on the crud they do like taking kids out of good homes and leaving kids in bad homes. Look that's all I have to say for now but you've really got to stop strawmanning me and being ignorant and pettleing your statism. It's getting ridiculous.

@@anancapcat4221 "How do you not get freedom when you homeschool it's literally just learning at your home, at your own pace, what you want to learn! That's it! Why can't you get this?" let's talk about the 'you' in that statement. there are two people involved: the parent, and the child (yes there are 2 parents most of the time but the argument is the same). the parent is the one who controls the education. the child has no control over their education. the child has no freedom of education since they are required to learn whatever their parents want them to. if you want freedom, you'd have to let kids decide for themselves where and what to be educated in; however, since children are children and are thus immature and have no life experience, they will inevitably make short-sighted and bad decisions about their education. so, we can't trust kids to educate themselves, and giving control to the parents is taking away their freedom; the only solution i see is to let teachers, who are passionate about teaching and have oversight from administrations and the state and to some extent all of the parents, teach our kids. "People abusing their kids isn't a flaw with the whole concept of homeschooling it's a flaw with parenting. Abuse can happen literally anywhere and school is for education so stop acting like it should be this oversight for abuse. Yes I believe abuse should be reported and intervened in but acting like just a way of learning is flawed because abuse can happen is ridiculous." okay, let's say i'm a child with an abusive parent. public school: i am away from home for a solid chunk of the day. i have friends, community members and most importantly adults who i trust. our school has two counselors and i get the support i need. homeschool: my dad doesn't let me leave the house. i have no friends, no trusted adults, and i don't know what to do. school is for education; but it's also for making friends, for expressing yourself, and, yes, a good way to help kids suffering from abuse. i'd rather my schools do all that than solely educate people. it is not ridiculous to think that a system which keeps kids at home with their abusive parents is flawed, because it is obviously flawed. "A lot of abuse happens right at public school and some teachers straight up ignore students that are being abused at home." yeah, but even if it was true that most kids didn't see help from teachers, ZERO kids would see help if they were homeschooled. "Homeschooling is not necessarily the parent educating the child since you can buy an online curriculum. Also even if the parent homeschools their kid like what's the problem? Like isn't it good for a parent to be able to spend time with their kid rather than ship them off to strangers to educate them?" not every parent knows how to do that; a lot don't. a lot also don't have the time, or the knowledge on what to educate their children with. i'd rather ship my kids off to professionals who studied for this than have to balance them and my job and my personal life. "You don't realize that good parents can have their kids taken away? Bet you never heard of the parents that got their daughter taken away just because they smoked pot. They were competent loving parents but CPS somehow caught wind that they took pot so they took the kids away." how many cases of that are there? CPS costs money. any unnecessary evictions or whatever are pointless as they just cost more money for CPS. so, even if some good parents get their kids taken away, most of the kids taken to safety will be ones who genuinely need it. "Look that's all I have to say for now but you've really got to stop strawmanning me and being ignorant and pettleing your statism." 1. define 'strawman,' give me examples of me doing this to you, tell me what you would like me to debunk instead and i will debunk it. 2. bold to say i am ignorant when your clearly do not do genuine research on the things i bring up. don't lie to yourself, you don't. 3. i am not 'peddling statism,' i am peddling anti-corporatocracy (corporatocracy being the logical endpoint to anarcho-capitalism, when monopolies take over the world.) 'oh, but corporation is a government-defined thing!!!!' shut up + companytocracy sounds dumber and means the same thing. i have time right now. and trust me even when i don't i will fight and fight until i can get you out of this crappy belief system.

How could it even do that? It's just visual entertainment. It's up to people to decide what to watch and how to educate themselves.

Thanks I'm glad you like this. You might actually like my project zomboid stuff way more than my political stuff. I mean we just disagree with so much but project zomboid is just pure excitement. You know you actually typing up the lyrics reminded me I forgot to put the captions so I made a 2nd version with them! th-cam.com/video/Ewy7PTfBNRU/w-d-xo.html I might make the changes you suggested sometime. Right now what I got is good.

Well you could say more than have an utterly pointless empty attack on my viewpoint... Or you could forever hold your peace. Your choice.

Well you just falsely assumed that, since ancaps are completely against corporations being they are state sanctioned entities via government corporate license. Also people can defend themselves and others without government which for some reason you assume government is necessary for self defense.

YES! i've been trying to tell him this for the past month. thank you so much

@@anancapcat4221 let's do some brainrot... 1. this unskibi Ancat dude fr just argued semantics about the word 'corporation.' on god bro 'in an ancap society you won't be getting mogged by corporations' is techincally correct but instead you'll be getting mogged by 'big companies.' 2. blud is NOT the sigma if he 1. thinks he can defend himself from every single evil and 2. children are also capable of that. 3. did he just completely ignore my man's entire point about kids being defenseless? bro this guy needs to SHUT his YAPPER before me and my LVL 5 GYATT poison his SKIBIDI SLICERS with SLURP JUICE and SEND HIM to OHIO

@@lordernietheduck Nobody is allowed to endanger anyone it's in the NAP (Non-aggression Principle) to not aggress/endanger anyone. You can defend yourself, you can defend others, you can own weapons, you can have a militia, private security/police/military etc.. You're not necessarily out on your own.

@@anancapcat4221 ah, the NAP. all ancaps seem to think this is some golden bullet. let's set one thing straight: the NAP is a suggestion. if you have the resources to break the NAP, say, if you're a company, and there's an incentive to, such as eliminating competition, then there's no reason not to break the NAP. the NAP will not protect you.

I think we largely agree. I mean all these people are like "Parents can't monitor everything and that's why the government has to step in!" and I'm like, "NO, parents need to watch over their kids regardless and have the government butt out!" And yeah people shouldn't stick naughty stuff in stuff that isn't supposed to have that.

You don't have a brain, if you're gonna say that despite my videos and my channel name proving otherwise.

@@anancapcat4221 also ur replying to bait comments ...

@@Zaxten Well see, I'm the kind of person that speaks if spoken to so if someone says something to me I'll respond. If it's smart I'll acknowledge it, if it's stupid I'll call it out. Maybe I should ignore some things but I have a tendency to address stuff I guess.

Imagine defending modern kids "content" and acting like someone criticizing it somehow means they want state management.

@@steelhammer3922 Saber says at least 3 times in the video that he supports legislation for media content. Also there's this thing called freedom of speech/expression where you can express yourself without being censored to oblivion. Nobody is making you or your kids watch. Don't like it? Then block the website then or limit when and how long your kid can use their devices. Why on earth people at large are looking at a coercive government solution to this is ridiculous.

*The issue is that children also don't understand the difference between something that has a plot and something that is brain-rot.* It seems like you're assigning an opinion/preference to what's sophisticated and what isn't. That's really opinionated of you rather than logical. Plus if children want to watch dumb junk then that's fine. Not everything is going to be sophisticated culture and that's fine. *It has been shown in studies that stuff like cocomelon HAS an effect on children.* What studies? People have been blaming tv shows, movies, video games, and even music and books for being bad for children when that's really not the case! It's really annoying that this how "Media causes violence!" or whatever argument just won't die. I mean it's been debunked of how bad this stuff is. Biggest point is parents can control what their kids consume rather than the stinking government.

@@anancapcat4221 hey ancat, did you do what he asked and research it? huh? no? you didn't? go do it and stop talking. it's not fine if children want to watch dumb junk. read what he said. it's robbing them of time they could spend learning, when they don't even have much control over it because all their brain knows how to do is look at the pretty colors. also, please tell me, in your endless wisdom, do you think brainrot counts as 'sophisticated?" you seriously think that the slop that gets pumped out at an industrial level is 'sophisticated?' if not, then stop complaining about him being opinionated. did you literally just say 'what studies?' he told you to research child development. if you're so confident in you being correct and him being wrong, read the studies. at least look for them. you're trying to change his argument. he never said media causes violence. he's literally saying that this media causes NOTHING - which is bad, because while it does nothing, if they weren't watching brainrot, they would be spending their time learning and developing. also, it technically doesn't do nothing - it has the negative effects which he talked about. parents can't always control what their kids consume and it's not as simple as you think it is. you're 1. not a parent 2. seem to spend most of your time making youtube videos or playing games and 3. clearly have no experience with children because you seem to have no idea how they act.

@@anancapcat4221 1. stop complaining about him being opinionated. don't look me in the face and tell me that brainrot is sophisticated. for the sake of his argument, brainrot = not sophisticated, media with a deeper meaning/message/actual theme = sophisticated. 2. kids not watching media with deeper meanings/messages/actual themes robs them of learning opportunities and social development yada yada someone else already said this. 3. go find the studies. i literally searched "effect of short form media on young children" and found five in like two seconds. just keep in mind when you're reading them that any time they note an increase in creativity, an increase in academic performance, or an increase in problem-solving skills, that brainrot encourages none of that. it's literally all the downsides to excessive screentime with none of the upsides. 4. the media bad argument is different now. small children whose brains are still developing are being exposed to highly addictive slop content. it doesn't cause violence, it causes all the downsides the studies are talking about. stop bragging about the fact that you're ignorant. 5. not all parents can monitor their children 24/7, know how to, care to, or otherwise cannot control what their kids watch. it's not as simple as you think.

@@lordernietheduck 1. I never said brainrot was sophisticated don't twist my words. I'm just saying it's an opinion how bad something is. Some people think this is bad some people think it's good. 2. And is it so important to watch sophisticated media. It's entertainment, you're here to be entertained. Not everything has to be educational. 3. I couldn't find the source you've mentioned. Even if brainrot doesn't have much substance does that matter. Not everyone is looking for substance, or development, or sophistication. 4. Again stop twisting my words, I'm not bragging about being ignorant nor am I necessarily ignorant. I couldn't find anything about brainrot content. The only thing I could find on brainrot was the concept on the negative effects of using social media too much. That's it. Even if it's as bad as y'all say it is nobody is pointing a weapon at your child and making them watch it. It's something that just exists. It's not being forced on anyone so why would you have a right to force legislation on it? 5. They don't have to monitor their children 24/7 just a decent amount. You guys act like even a tiny bit of brainrot is going to scar them for life. It's not. All this hysteria for content nobody is making anyone watch and isn't as toxic as people think.

@@anancapcat4221 brain rot, kills the minds of kids. They will have trouble functioning in general.

When it comes to entertainment people have been vilifying whatever it is for years. People have blamed violence on video games, tv shows, movies, even music! And you know what? None of its true! Entertainment doesn't cause violence or degeneracy or whatever. It's the same thing with brainrot. It's just entertainment. I've seen it and all it is, is stupid. NOT stupid and harmful, JUST stupid. You people are making it out to be some sort of destructive thing when all it is is just junk.

@@anancapcat4221 his entire second paragraph is agreeing with you in that he doesn't like people vilifying tech/media. your entire comment is this one strawman that you keep using where you call the person basically a 'phone bad book good boomer' and don't care to debunk any of their points. there have been studies on the effects of this, and many, many, many anecdotes, from parents, teachers, and child development experts. go look at them. also, while it is 'just junk,' that junk robs young kids of their attention span, social awareness, imagination, critical thinking skills, and opportunities to learn since they're addicted to this slop.

@@lordernietheduck it's also robs them of their identity, they all almost seem like the same person

The government shouldn't be involved with this stuff period since it's at a person's discretion of what to watch. Plus this brainrot thing is so exaggerated it kind of baffles me that people are making such a big deal out of it. And that stealing problem you mentioned? That's more of a content theft problem not a brainrot problem. I'm just baffled that people want less and less freedom these days and act like they can't anything themselves and should get the government involved to do it for them. That's just making everything worse.

Oh. Well there actually is an animator called Rocky Rakoon.

@@anancapcat4221 I know I was just excited

@@Beatlesfangirl Hehe.

How is making a reaction video clout chasing?

Society is just a collective of individuals and individuals are in charge for themselves in terms of their own safety in what they consume including content. It's not up for the government to be people's babysitter for "muh society!" or "think of the children!" If you don't trust this government why would you be okay with it having increased control? You just established you don't trust it. If it's not worthy of trust then giving it more control would be serious cognitive dissonance with you. It's not the government's business for society's health it's each individual's job to be responsible for their own safety. If you want the government to watch out for your children or society then you're not being a mature adult who should be taking things into their own hands proactively.

also may I know your cultural leaning? Reactionary? conservative? progressive? or moderate? well I am mixed as I see conservative libertarian and Progressive Libertarian should corporate together as they both have respectable things

@@my_nicknameplb_gg I'm an anarcho-capitalist also known as an ancap. I can also be called an agorist or a voluntaryist, even a agorist-capitalist or voluntaryist capitalist! There is no uniting people of political affiliations unfortunately. We're just too different and the only thing we should be fighting for is freedom.

@@anancapcat4221 well How about Javier Milei? we may can learn something or 2 from argentina you see Realpolitik still need to get power

@@anancapcat4221 and you know SEK3 Agorism he is counter economic the illegal black market activity like drugs gambling etc . As long as it not red market and he is anti Socialism and capitalism

@@my_nicknameplb_gg You can't be agorist and be anti-capitalist that's a blatant contradiction. Agorism is capitalism and vice versa. Saying you're agorist but against capitalism is like saying you're communist but you're against collectivism which communism is all about. Collectivism, seizing the means of production, wealth redistribution, and all by force of course. If he were just anti-socialism then from that alone he has a chance of being agorist because agorists are against socialism too.

Even if brainrot is a threat, do you really trust the government to look out for you? It's not the government's right to decide people can't make certain things just because kids can see it. This is where you the parent limit what your kids watch. You don't get to shut down people's content you just get to limit what your kid takes part in. Brainrot or not I think kids have been addicted to technology ever since it's been invented the bigger problem is how to manage your kid using it.

@@anancapcat4221 the government can legislate wether kids are allowed to see it. It could be were these brainrot videos/channels don't get funded like any yt channel about fire-arms is even if its for educational purposes. If yt gets to rule that then they can make rules like that aggainst channels deemed harmful for developing brains. Alternatively yt could fix kids yt removing content farms built on stealing from other channels, have deplorable/suggestive thumbnails or content, and allowing more well made video channels. Then they can make a rule not allowing kids under the age of 13 on yt and those kids can use kids yt. Regular yt would require you to make an account through google/email/ect. banning school emails/google/ect. accounts from that list. Any parents letting their kids on regular yt are liable for the consequences of that. Yt or the government could also make rules aggainst the short channels and content farms that just steal from other posted videos or steal and add comentary that is not actually transformative. This way those shorts that just rehash what is seen or provide "new information" pulled out of their rear can be removed if channels report the theft. The same with videos that are literally nothing more than screen recordings with flashing/strobe lights added+distorted sounds and nothing else. It is stealing that does nothing more than risk kids with epillepsy/siezures stumbling upon them. This would remove alot of the unneccessary content leading to brainrot and does nothing to content anyone would actually want to see. These are three different methods just off the top of my head that yt or the government could use to legislate brainrot and their are probably numerous other more successful ideas as well. Heck you could even go the exact opposite and make an 18+ yt (that doesn't allow extreme smegsy stuff or anything federally illegal) that can allow more freedom for content creators and insures only those with developed brains are watching that can understand the consequences of what they view.

@@ReimaginedSkies Nah it can't, government shouldn't control what people watch, it's their business. Government has no right to be anyone's babysitter. That's the parent's job.

@anancapcat4221 so the government can't step in if someone creates a corn channel and sends bots to get people to watch including kids?. Tutorials to do drogs (replace o with u), get them hooked on gambling with real money on mobile games. That's bs. Obviously the government can step in to protect kids and their development. The examples I gave were ways to do so that the government or youtube could take that wouldn't stop adults from watching what they want. Just creates hurdles for kids.

@@anancapcat4221 not all parents can monitor what their kids watch 24/7, especially in this day and age :>

I think my microphone I don't see what the problem is. 8:30 Okay what's the so called damage that even happens with brainrot? Like what's the specific problem caused by this specific thing? 9:10 NO, I wouldn't want any government regulation on what's shown on tv and what's this about undisclosed sponsors? 12:10 This is why you be a parent and limit what your kids watch then. Don't expect a company to take care of your kids even in that regard. 17:10 Okay well what does the brainrot do to the kids that do watch it? What makes it so horrible? What's gonna happen to kids if they watch it? 18:36 Once again, if that's the case be a parent and take it away from your kids? Plus a lot of it just seems like junk I mean chicken nuggets speaking gibberish? That doesn't seem like anything. Also it seems like a huge exaggeration how bad it is. 19:36 NO, you can settle things in private courts and invading someone's privacy is bad and prosecutable with or without a government! 30:30 Kids can get hooked on technology regardless of it being brainrot or not so why even target brainrot as if it's some special kind of evil? 32:05 You can at least do a fairly decent job and take a lot of inappropriate content away from them. It's not like you have to have a government limit freedom of expression and speech just to "make things more secure". Am I not allowed to target specific people espousing a bad viewpoint? That's the whole point of a debunking video! As in this person says this incorrect thing so another person says how they're incorrect. Also who said I could only cover one topic? I can cover whatever I want. Also you're not shutting down stuff just because kids can see it. Anybody can see anything so you gonna shut everything down? Point is you've got to be a parent to limit what your kids watch if that stuff is so bad. Don't censor other people's stuff just so you can have a supposedly easier time policing it from your kid. That's your job not theirs. I'm tired of this whole Ok Boomer "Phone bad, technology bad, book good, outside good!" mentality like it's so bad to enjoy technology. Like everyone that uses this technology is going to get "addicted" and not function anymore despite that not being the case. It's getting really old.

​@@anancapcat4221 my man. little, small little children, little guys and gals and inbetweens, they don't have developed brains. that's why it's so important expose them to content that actively stunts their development. you make a few points here, i'll quickly explain: 1. you ask what the effects are. it decreases attention span, makes kids addicted, and, most importantly, is time spent not doing something healthy, formative, creative or all the other things that the kid could be doing which massively help their growth. i know you've heard of iPad kids. and also, in Saber's video, he talks about how his cousin (i think) who's a teacher is facing issues with kids having low attention spans. there are countless other teachers saying this, so no, it's not just a 'crappy school.' you give a phone to a 10 year old and plop them in school and they're gonna prefer their phone to learning no matter how good the school is. 2. okay, i'll go broadcast slanderous propaganda/violent imagery/explicit content/misleading advertisements. 3. not all parents know about these things (not really to their blame; they have better things to worry about), nor can they monitor people 24/7. when both parents have a job, like most do in this day and age, it can be tough to monitor everything your kid does. 4. please explain to me this whole genius about private courts and how they absolutely can't be rigged at all or bribed in any way and are 100% awesome and great and also that a company wouldn't just say "you signed a contract when you turned on your TV, and it also applies to kids. what, they can't agree to it? says who? the law?" 5. why target brainrot? because kids are getting hooked on brainrot. there are also calls to regulate social media for the same reason. keep up with the times, man. misc: "Am I not allowed to target specific people espousing a bad viewpoint? That's the whole point of a debunking video! As in this person says this incorrect thing so another person says how they're incorrect." i'm just saying that there are much bigger fish to fry. how about making a video essay on government censorship in media? "Also you're not shutting down stuff just because kids can see it. Anybody can see anything so you gonna shut everything down?" what? is this about the softcore rule 34 bit? my point was that a prepubescent child shouldn't run the risk of viewing that kind of inappropriate content at that age, nothing about destroying it entirely. "Point is you've got to be a parent to limit what your kids watch if that stuff is so bad. Don't censor other people's stuff just so you can have a supposedly easier time policing it from your kid. That's your job not theirs." not all parents can do that. they have jobs. this is why i'd prefer a method of instant communication, so that i could shut down moot points quickly and properly explain what you're not understanding. also, i made a comment on your video 'debunking' Adam Something's views on FMC and Ancap, don't know if you saw that one. toodles

@@lordernietheduck I saw your comment on the adam somthing video. It's just so large and jumbled together that's it's gonna take awhile to pick apart and respond to. I might have to respond to your points in chunks rather than give an individual response to everyone one. Maybe we can have a live chat on discord.

Good points mate! Frankly- Was gonna watch the full video and drop more criticism on this man, but- Frankly, too tired to if several people already have, so props to you.

@@scarsandstiches254 So what were going to say to me?

I think so.

@@anancapcat4221 do you mind help me out with the save file? and the name of the emulator please?

@@xXsuperendoXx I can't help you with the save files but the emulator is called rpcs3.

@@anancapcat4221 why u cannot help me with the save file? i just want to see something in the game

@@xXsuperendoXx Well how do you want me to help you?

Why do you think it should be mixed?

@@anancapcat4221 we have it in norway and it made us the best, richest and happiest in the world.

I agree with all of your Points except that social democracy should be the Main Goal. I live in Germany and i can See how Our social democracy is endangered simply due to goverment savings and bigotry. Only a socialist or communist system would truly fix social inequality for eternity. This is Not to say that social democracy is Bad but rather that it shouldnt be the end Goal. Also the part about Prostitution i disagree with. As Long as Money is a Factor, Prostitution is just r*pe with a transaction. Besides, Most prostitutes have a pimp or have been forced into it and it is very difficult to differentiate or even Figuren Out whether a Person is selling their consent Out of desperstion or Manipulation or worse. The best fix for These issues is the norweigan model where being a prostitute is totaly legal but buying one isnt. Putting the responsebility and consequences on the buyer and protecting sex workers

​@@Cherryzardxy yeah, i agree with your point about prostitution. i mainly advocate for social democracy since it's not too lofty of a goal and it opens up the possibility of transitioning to full socialism or communism.

Wow it sure stinks like commie in here. While I believe anarcho capitalism is a great end goal it’s completely utopian in nature and what’s more reasonable is a slow, gradual shift towards capitalist ideals. I’ll dumb it down so it’s easy to digest: 1. **Shrink Government, Cut Spending** - Reduce unnecessary programs and lower the national debt. 2. **Simplify and Lower Taxes** - Make taxes easy to understand and lessen the burden on everyone. 3. **Eliminate Excessive Regulations** - Remove red tape that stifles businesses and innovation. 4. **Privatize Public Services** - Improve quality by letting private companies handle education and healthcare. 5. **Protect Personal Freedoms** - Defend free speech, privacy, and property rights from government overreach. 6. **Adopt Non-Interventionist Foreign Policy** - End costly wars and focus on national defense, not policing the world. 7. **Promote Free Markets** - Remove trade barriers and let the economy thrive through competition. 8. **Reform Criminal Justice** - Decriminalize non-violent offenses and emphasize rehabilitation over incarceration. 9. **Abolish Unnecessary Agencies** - Cut down on bureaucracy by eliminating redundant government bodies. 10. **Empower Local Communities** - Shift decision-making from federal to local levels for tailored solutions. 11. **Champion Educational Choice** - Support vouchers and homeschooling to give families control over education. 12. **Revamp Monetary Policy** - Stabilize currency and allow alternative forms of money like cryptocurrencies. 13. **Simplify Immigration** - Make it easier for peaceful, hardworking people to enter legally. 14. **Defend Second Amendment Rights** - Protect the right to bear arms without undue restrictions. 15. **Promote Environmental Responsibility** - Use property rights to encourage conservation and hold polluters accountable. 16. **Increase Healthcare Freedom** - Remove barriers to competition to lower costs and improve care. 17. **End Corporate Welfare** - Stop subsidies and bailouts to ensure a fair economic playing field. 18. **Demand Government Transparency** - Make all government actions open to public scrutiny and accountability.

Thanks and my fursona is indeed a cat.

I'm just shocked at the amount of bitter gun grabbers I've gotten on my reaction video. I mean they were MAD and as explained in this video I just want freedom and protection for people.

@@anancapcat4221 Gun grabbers are dominated by fear. The orchestrated psyops that are peddled by the propagandists on their TVs, the false narratives and inaccurate stats, drive the narrative. It's kind of expected of them to resort to REEEEing and getting emotional. I want the same thing as you do. Sad thing is, you can't exactly force any of them to think. I don't try to force anything, but I do try to encourage and motivate. The only thing to do is keep moving onward, and keep making these videos, in case there are anyone who actually want to seek knowledge and unlearn from the lies they were taught to believe as common truth.

I might be able to do that. It'd have to be when I get back home later though.

What's your discord ID?

If up to the kid refers to ones personal reason for owning a gun just like as an adult. If the minor is unstable then they shouldn't have a gun. Most minors are stable so why judge them based on a few non-stable ones? Your link doesn't work for some reason but even if the murders are up there with suicides that doesn't change the fact you need and have the right to own guns as a means of self defense. Also the left in particular tends to present all gun deaths as murder rather than being truthful that more than half are suicides. How did I brush off that some gun owners will have their guns used for heinous things? I addressed that by saying that's why you have your guns locked up in a bolted down safe. And the burden is still on the criminal. Any gun safe can be broken into with enough time and right effort but at least it's better than nothing. Also the safe buys you some time to stop the thieves including with deadly force. I did provided sources to back up my claims look at the description. Also I've seen other ancaps insult statists and still be professional since insults aren't the crux of their arguments. They're just taking a jab at them peddling nonsense. I play the whole video so I don't miss any relevant parts and so people don't accuse me of taking him out of context since I have the whole video. I don't support gun control because I realize that criminals just refuse to follow laws and be civil towards people. That's why you need guns to take them out. No restrictions, no tyranny, no nonsense.

@@anancapcat4221 Thank you for your response, and I apologize for not thoroughly checking my comment before posting. I did also fix my links so they should work now. My point here is I don't believe there is a good idea to give a kid an AR-15 or AR-15 style rifle, not as a whole. I believe you can give a kid a shotgun as it can be used for deer and bird hunting, in addition to being a self defense weapon. I may not agree with it (I don't have any data to back this up), but if precautions are taken, then maybe it's fine. I disagree with my side's arguments, as they tend to be emotional and I'm not convinced by those arguments. I think we should be looking at the broader context first before we address the problems first. I apologize for not checking my point here as you did address it. The Lock Picking Lawyer video I posted demonstrates my point here. He opens the gun safe with a strip of plastic cut from an orange juice container and jimmies it open in a matter of seconds. The gun owner should know the ins and outs of a safe, or perhaps we should hold gun safe companies to a higher standard (perhaps regulations). I did check your sources (I apologize for not checking this more thoroughly). At a glance, I don't see anything particularly wrong with your sources. While I do lean towards Second Amendment rights, the statistics do show that gun regulations, more or less, do work. Yes, there are states with no regulations and low gun deaths per capita (like Iowa), but in the broader context, they are also sparsely populated areas. Source: worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/strictest-gun-laws-by-state A criminal doesn't necessarily NEED a gun to do a crime, they can do so with a computer (surely you remember how prevalent the Nigerian Prince scams where?).

@@ClaymoreDragon48 Places with gun control are worse, just look at the UK with all its knife and gun crime. Also yeah gun safes can be breached with enough time and effort but they're better than nothing and home owners can open some in an instant the weapons are needed. Also as a free human being I can own the weapon of my choosing regardless of what other people think. It's my money, my weapon, my discretion, my choice.

And what's your source for that statistic?

@@anancapcat4221 It's not as easy to find because republicans in the 90's prohibited direct studies about gun safety, but you can find it if you search a little bit... Do you have any background about gun statistic? Do you know some statistic about gun safety? You are the one making the claim first, but did you based your opinion on anything factual??

@@Shawouin Look in my description I cite sources.

@@anancapcat4221 Ok, your PEW source said there's more death from suicide than murder.

@@anancapcat4221 "Yeah because some people misuse a tool that means nobody should responsibly own it..." Your argument in your description is a fallacy. Shive doesn't say this.

Suicidal people are not a justification to infringe upon gun rights. Neither are psychopathic individuals. Also what statistics? All the reasonable gun owners prove this notion of yours to be false.

@@anancapcat4221 Do you think that people should be allowed to own nuclear weapons?

@@anancapcat4221 There's a pubmed study titled "Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home" that found that "For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides."

@@VeProducctions Stay on topic, we're talking about firearms here not nukes. So I'm not answering that off topic question.

@@VeProducctions That's off topic so I'm not answering that. Focus on firearms not atom blowy uppy devices.

Oh wow, you nitpick at the way I talk such fairness and you're accusing me of ad hominem? Also the clickbait title card is just me jabbing at him a bit, it's not the crux of my argument. He didn't put any thought into his argument. It's basically just "Oh innocent people can get harmed with guns so nobody should have them." That's not a good argument.

I should stop making videos just because you can't think? I mean I did my research. In fact, I was even for gun control from late elementary school, middle school to early high school. I didn't my research then but then I started to look stuff up. I found out the truth that gun control doesn't work and gun use does so I became pro gun. Also the whole point of the gun safety is to reduce/mitigate risk of unintentional harm so what's your point? Gun safety isn't perfect but it's a heck of a lot better than pure ignorance around a deadly tool. All you gun grabbers have is appeal to emotion, strawman and ad hominin for arguments. Like that's supposed to convince people to give up a fundamental sub-right of self preservation? Give me a break!

Well NO, I mean it's a legitimate philosophy on the barebone basics of how people should treat each other a.k.a. (not aggressing which includes not forming a state), but if you want to lie and be useless about it, then what can I do?

How the fuck do you think you being an idiot has anything to do with a decent argument? You must have been slammed on your head.

I do like 2nd amendment rights. That's the whole point of this video. A lot of people in the comments don't however.

@@anancapcat4221 I was agreeing with you and enjoyed your vid. I gave it a thumbs up.

@@tmerrick24 Thank you!

Anarchists are not against capitalism, know why? Because it's voluntary. Where do you get the idea we'd be against a voluntary system? Anarchist are against involuntary systems such as government. We're not against every system, just the involuntary ones! Of course there are going to be rules for working for someone. That's the point! You need to do the stuff they have for you to do otherwise why hire you? Also circumstantially you need to work no matter what system you're in otherwise nothing gets done! Survival doesn't happen on its own so people need to do stuff. Capitalism makes this burden as light as possible. Government does the opposite. Also homelessness is what you get with government, just look at what the welfare state, taxation, inflation, zoning laws, drug war, economic regulation and other stuff does to make poverty. All government policies NOT CAPITALISM. Stop lying and acting like you know what you clearly don't.

@@anancapcat4221 OK, than stop with all your work and try to live on Antarctica or Haiti, both have absent or failed governments, but one have free market. Government is necessary for maintenance of capitalist flaws, that's well known fact from Adam Smith.

@@Feefa99 Haiti has a government so you're wrong on that one, as for Antarctica that harder has any human settlement on it government or otherwise (since it's so cold for one) so what's your point? Also government is necessary for capitalist flaws? That makes no sense. I mean what flaws with capitalism could government possibly be fixing in your eyes?

What's magats?

Not mocking you or anything, I'm just not familiar with that term.

@anancapcat4221 it's the going term for the maga movement.

@@Veheloth Oh right, I agree, those maga people aren't smart either.

Nope, school shootings happen everywhere and you generally can't get an assault rifle in the U.S. since there are very few legally transferable ones.

Why is it dumb? I mean IF guns were the problem there would be more deaths. Nobody would ever use them responsibly, nobody would ever save anyone and nobody would ever take down a bad person. You know because guns are totally the problem right? Seems like you just hate them.

@@anancapcat4221 there are more deaths, just look at how the US compares to other countries. Look at Australia, when they cracked down on guns the deaths due to guns went down. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_of_Australia

@@aaronbono4688 People have been hindered from using what guns they're allowed to own in Australia to protect themselves. You aren't allowed to put "protection" on a gun license after all so if you use your gun in self defense you get in trouble. That's not gonna reduce violence plus Australia has had gun violence despite the ban. It all goes back to how well are you able to protect yourself from criminals.

I'm not saying it stops suicides. I'm saying it prevents accidents and increases self defense effectiveness. Which is what you should want instead of complaining about how armed people can be and how much "danger" they put themselves in. And a suicidal person does equal gun ownership being bad as a whole.

People like you are part of the problem. Your ignorance is so astounding that you think this will stop anything. I can so it with my bare hands.

@@anancapcat4221 you can't exclude a big part of the problem and then say, look no problem

@@aaronbono4688 Guns aren't the problem though. They've been always been around in modern that USA and yet mass shootings were hardly a thing back then in like the 1970s and before. People should acknowledge things such as the war on drugs which creates gangs, which create gun violence. People should also acknowledge things like gun control that enables criminals to be more successful with their crimes. Considering the fact that they won't disarm themselves but the victims well. Also what about social/psychological factors that could make someone go on a shooting? Like bullying, abuse, ptsd, mental health problems, something more likely to be the cause of shootings rather than the tool.

Gee, it's almost like the mental healthcare system was routinely gutted and defunded right as these crises started happening. The solution doesn't have to exist with taking rights away from people who've done nothing wrong. You could advocate for mental healthcare reform, which would actually help people.