>> ^conan:

What? First Computer built in Iowa? Yeah Yeah Yeah, everything was invented in the US. It's like when we had exchange students from the states, asking us beforehand their trip if we have cheese and washing machines. First Computer was built in Berlin by Konrad Zuse. Bitches think they know IT :-)


You criticize Americans for claiming to have invented everything and then turn around and do it yourself. Zuse's claim to having the first "computer" is as tenuous as the Iowa claim. His Wikipedia article even says: "The first electronic computer (though not programmable) was the Atanasoff machine developed at Iowa State University during 1939-41."

Also, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_computing_hardware#Early_electronic_digital_computation which has a nice table of early computer features and has this disclaimer: "Defining a single point in the series as the "first computer" misses many subtleties"

Clearly there is a continuous progression of more and more modern looking digital computers during this era. I mean look at the Wikipedia articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atanasoff%E2%80%93Berry_Computer -- was the first electronic digital computing device.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z3_%28computer%29 -- was the world's first working programmable, fully automatic computing machine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus_computer -- was the world's first electronic, digital, programmable computer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENIAC -- was the first general-purpose electronic computer.

A similar thing happened in aviation, and I'll admit it's a bit silly that we Americans give the Wright brothers such ambiguous credit when there were so many researchers around the world doing nearly the same thing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_aviation_-_20th_century

There are conversion kits to make a Glock 17 automatic. It's my guess that's what he's using as Glock 18s are comparatively rare and FPS Russia doesn't seem the type to make that kind of naming mistake.
>> ^NaMeCaF:

A fully automatic Glock 17... isn't that a Glock 18 then?

A fully automatic Glock 17... isn't that a Glock 18 then?

>> ^Bruti79:

I know nothing about guns, but was that AK a semi-auto or a full auto?
It seemed like it popped off a lot of rounds in one trigger press.


The same guy has other videos - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjLwz6HngzI & http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHKaIA9FTRA using what I assume is the same gun (AKS-74U). In those, you can clearly see a fully-automatic mode.

According to this - http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090208100642AA1yRuX
Full-auto weapons are legal, but have a lot of restrictions when it comes to buying/selling.

In some states they are still banned - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Assault_weapons_bans_in_other_states

>> ^timefactor:

All the birds heard in the background are from eastern North America, none of which occur in Russia.


He never said he's in Russia. He mentions multiple times in his videos that he films on his property in the US. There's also plenty of speculation that he is just a character, like Borat, that someone created for youtube.

Also, he should really wear some eye and ear protection.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Dual Full-Auto Shotguns, For the FUCKING WIN~!1!


Amen.

I've always, and still do consider theses Critical Mass rallies as little better than any other protest that blockades a major thoroughfare. It's wrong and people should get arrested and fined at these things more regularly.

That said, this is utterly horrific. There is little difference between this and dispersing the crowd with a spray from a fully automatic weapon. However much I disagree with Critical Mass, this was terrible and nothing can even remotely justify it.

They're not outlawed, but just really hard to get a hold of.
>> ^coolhund:

I thought fully automatic assault rifles (and machineguns, SMGs,etc) arent allowed for the public in the US?

I thought fully automatic assault rifles (and machineguns, SMGs,etc) arent allowed for the public in the US?

It's a viral for fully-automatic nail guns.

the tracers are loaded up every 5th round in the m16, every 10th in the fully automatic S.A.W. What those fellas needed was one well placed round of artey, would have saved them alot of time, I suspect they went a little trigger happy, a shame because I bet the enemy just wandered off to shoot another day. But what do I know, maybe there wasn't any available for whatever reason.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

That's total bullshit. Cops are allowed to do things during the course of their job that the average citizen is not.
Try pulling someone over with your car today. Really yell at them and honk your horn like crazy and see if they pull over. Then, when they don't, perform a nice PIT maneuver with your car. After all, cops are allowed to do it right? So shouldn't you?
Or how about this: Try carrying around a loaded, fully-automatic assault rifle. If anyone screws with you, tell them that SWAT team members are allowed to carry them, so you should be allowed to as well. Sound like crazy talk? It is.
How is this for a double-standard: if a cop sees someone committing a crime, they are required by law to stop it. Whereas you, a normal citizen, is not required by law to do anything. Is that unfair? Or is that because stopping criminals is part of a cop's job description?
Cops are allowed to do things that normal citizens are not. They can put up barricades. They can direct traffic. They can use "police only" radio channels.
It seems to me like this is equivalent to walking into a hospital and saying, "I'd like to perform some brain surgery, and if you don't let me, you're holding me and the actual brain surgeon up to different standards!" But they're not holding you up to different standards at all. Almost anyone can go to school to become a brain surgeon. But the school part is a requirement to actually practicing the work.
In the same way, almost anyone can go to a police academy or other training school and become a cop. So it's not a double-standard, it's two separate roles that individuals play in a society. Roles that are established by that same society. It's not that complicated.
Again, if the cop was using an illegal space to park in while he went and got a tic-tac or something, I could see the argument. But this isn't even an argument. It's crazy talk.


Cops are allowed to do break the law only in the case of an emergency.

A citizen is not afforded the lawful power to stop someone from moving freely on the street, or in the commission of a misdemeanor, or felony.

When was the last time you saw Special Weapons and Tactics carrying around fully automatic weapons on a beat, or a QRT for that matter? No, they cannot just walk around with their fully automatic weapons while patrolling. That argument is bogus. Force proportion. A peace officer does not need an M-4 to perform a traffic stop.

Cops are allowed the erect barricades only in case of emergency. Traffic redirection is case of emergency or special occasion, funerals and the like. In some cases officers have the legal authority to setup checkpoints for license and registration checks. That's been argued that they cannot do that because it hinders freedom of movement, and the police didn't have a legal reason to stop. Other than to check if someone committed an offense.

You will find that police only radio channels are often encrypted, because the public can listen to them, and hijack them. Which is illegal and those laws are enforced by the FCC.

Your argument above has many sections I would say are crazy talk. The video producer's argument is simply stating if a officer who is at rest and is illegally parked he or she is violating the same law he or she is sworn to uphold. There is a reason that area is illegal to park in; fire hydrants, bus-stops, bicycle path, or whatever reason the municipality decided citizens can't park there. What is the officer doing? The exact same thing a citizen would be doing, except he has a different hat on.

This has been argued over and over. The only time an officer can lawfully break the law is in case of emergency. It's the same case when an officer is speeding without his or her lights and sirens active. The only time anything ever gets done to stop unlawful activity is when someone raises the red flags, otherwise it will continue.

Whether the producer's a douche or not is beside the base argument of this video.

That's total bullshit. Cops are allowed to do things during the course of their job that the average citizen is not.

Try pulling someone over with your car today. Really yell at them and honk your horn like crazy and see if they pull over. Then, when they don't, perform a nice PIT maneuver with your car. After all, cops are allowed to do it right? So shouldn't you?

Or how about this: Try carrying around a loaded, fully-automatic assault rifle. If anyone screws with you, tell them that SWAT team members are allowed to carry them, so you should be allowed to as well. Sound like crazy talk? It is.

How is this for a double-standard: if a cop sees someone committing a crime, they are required by law to stop it. Whereas you, a normal citizen, is not required by law to do anything. Is that unfair? Or is that because stopping criminals is part of a cop's job description?

Cops are allowed to do things that normal citizens are not. They can put up barricades. They can direct traffic. They can use "police only" radio channels.

It seems to me like this is equivalent to walking into a hospital and saying, "I'd like to perform some brain surgery, and if you don't let me, you're holding me and the actual brain surgeon up to different standards!" But they're not holding you up to different standards at all. Almost anyone can go to school to become a brain surgeon. But the school part is a requirement to actually practicing the work.

In the same way, almost anyone can go to a police academy or other training school and become a cop. So it's not a double-standard, it's two separate roles that individuals play in a society. Roles that are established by that same society. It's not that complicated.

Again, if the cop was using an illegal space to park in while he went and got a tic-tac or something, I could see the argument. But this isn't even an argument. It's crazy talk.

First of all, I never said "international waters" because the Mediterranean is not.

Secondly if there is "paint ball" guns, then you are an idiot if you think the military carries paint ball guns used by children. These are military weapons used often in Iraq and other places because the "paint balls" contain chemical weapons. These are know as less lethal crowd control weapons.

These marines illegal boarded a vessel with many many fully automatic assault weapons and shot people. Anyone trying to point to a paint ball gun like it justifies piracy and murder is really pathetic and sadly trying to justify murder by these Israelis.

What if these people were afraid and were turning back? How would you know considering they were miles from the shoreline. The truth is that Israel should have waited until this ship was in THEIR waters and violating some law or justifiable reason to board a boat and kill people.

But they were cowards and wanted to do this at night instead of waiting until they were 22 or 11 miles or whatever and it was daylight and maybe even the media could see this.

Sure, these "activists" probably should have expected to be boarded. In fact, they knew about this boarding. For some reason some people on the boats tried to defend themselves. Does that justify shooting them?

How do you know the marines weren't going to murder everyone on the ship and steal the boat? How would anyone even think that wasn't a possibility? I mean what rational reasonable navy of a modern country can't just come alongside a ship during the daylight hours and say "turn back". They have a naval blockade.. Why not use it?

gun related homicides in total / per 100.000
(small arms report 2004, most reliable source i know of)

USA 10,310 / 3.45
Canada 170 / 0.54
Germany 155 / 0.19

As you might have guessed i'm living in Germany. Possession and even more so carrying is highly restricted. Although there still are around 20-30 mio "civilian" guns over here (Canada: 7 mio, US: 250 mio). Mostly in possession of traditional shooting associations (gun clubs or however you might call them). No carrying in assembled state, must be kept in a safe at home, ammunition must be kept away from gun in a seperate safe etc.

Because of those restrictions chances that you'll ever encounter a gun-armed criminal on german streets trying to mug you or whatever are EXTREMLY low. Don't get me wrong, this isn't heaven. You still might get mugged ;-) But you most probably won't get shot. As long as you're not a high caliber criminal chances are that you never even see a gun "on the street" in Germany (except cops etc.). That's because of those restrictions. And they do influence the black market because of sentences [correct word? fines?] being draconic, especially for certain types of guns (everything fully automatic, assault rifles, machine guns etc) which are called "Kriegswaffen", i.e. 'war guns'. There is no legal way to possess them anyway and if found with you you'll never see the sunlight again ;-), even more so if you're trying to sell.

I don't feel the need to have a gun.


>> ^QuadraPixel:

[...] because in countries/states that restrict firearms ownership only the criminals have guns. BECAUSE THEY ARE CRIMINALS!
Keep in mind, I'm talking about 1st world countries Conan. What country do you live in? [...]