It's not giving up the gun that might save lives, it's giving up the right to own them.
His gun probably wouldn't ever kill someone.
The right of any non restricted person to buy one is what leads to murderers having this tool often used to commit mass murder.
Would that stop all mass murders? Absolutely not, but it would stop SOME...probably most. Other methods people use are harder to assemble without being caught (bombs), are far less lethal (knives, arrows), and/or are harder to procure (tasteless poisons or gas). There's no other legal tool available to the public capable of mass murders with so little effort.

And yes, @BSR, this guy just made a sawed off AR15. He better post the video of him cutting it in half again if he doesn't want a visit from ATF. That gun almost certainly still fires, it's just incredibly more dangerous to the user now, and highly illegal. Not sure what you're saying in your snarky post, he didn't ever say a word otherwise.

I was all ready to put down some snarky comment or drag out a "welcome our overlords" thing, but then I noticed something.

They all ski better than I do.

Technically, this is every single argument on the internet. One person puts detailed information and gets picked apart with short, snarky responses.

I was going to make some snarky comment about it, but it's actually kinda cool.

Gak! My Senior Thesis in Architecture (and they told me you can't design in a vacuum...true story, led to my snarky thesis...FU establishment)

Had this been at United Airlines, Jerry would not have gotten away with all this snarkiness so easily...

Mr. Oliver is by far my favorite [wish I could afford HBO!]. I find Seth to be on the snarky side in his delivery ... which is something that has always tickled my fancy for some unknown reason. [my mean streak is showing]

You're correct about the jokes writing themselves. There's been more than a few times I've had an obscure retort pop into my head after seeing something on the news. I'll even repeat it to a few close friends and, sure as shootin', it appears in a monologue or in some discussion within a day or two. Blows me away every time. Well, sigh, at least I can laugh again ... most days

I believe this is the closest I have ever come to fully viewing this video. The sin tally and the snarky commentary moved it from unwatchable to barely tolerable.

Ahh I see

I also didn't mean for it to come across as snarky as it did

You must be a pretty sturdy dude, if you could actually do that. Oops, was that snarky?

At first I was going to make a snarky comment about the lack of grace in the choreography. Then I realized that anyone who can do all these acrobatics in spike heels is so far out of the norm that they are, for all intents and purposes, superhuman. Now I'm afraid to say anything even remotely derogatory about the video.

Why look for that excuse? I think the word you are looking for is 'validation'. I think it's really human nature that compels us to search out those who we see as being like us and helps to reaffirm our beliefs. Fox News became a media empire based almost entirely on this principle and ever since then many other media outlets have followed suit.

@Imagoamin
I read that article a little while back, but I'm not sure taking away Patreon or ad money would silence those people. I'm pretty sure many like thunderf00t would just keep on doing what they're doing anyhow. I've watched some of thunderf00t's videos and while they may not use the most genteel language or may come off as snarky but it never sounded like harassment to me.

YouTube, and the internet in general are a soapbox which people like Anita Sarkeesian can use to criticize popular media and can also be used by others to criticize Sarkeesian in turn, this is perfectly fair in my opinion.

I like Mark, where do I buy him a beer? Do we just watch society crumble while being snarky then, from now on?

@Payback -- The Youtube comments area is not to be considered a potential source of rational discussion.

Assume that one concedes to your point about "terminal velocity" being the wrong phrase to use here. What would be better? And I'll note that there are many potential metrics for "better" -- conveying the correct idea precisely, doing so in a concise manner, etc.

"Neodymium Magnets Reaching a Velocity at Which the Centrifugal Force Upon Them Exceeds the Magnetic Force Holding Them Together" makes for a more accurate title, but might lose brevity points. The "Terminal Velocity" title conveys maybe only 75% of the accuracy of the more precise title, but with a greater than 25% savings in length (5 words vs 19). Although I'm sure a more optimally brief AND accurate title exists.

Not trying to be snarky, and I 100% agree that there are situations where saying something with complete accuracy and careful precision is extremely important. But perhaps an online video about magnets spinning apart can be at least partially excused for opting for brevity over accuracy, especially in something as trivial as the title. Especially when the inaccuracy can be noted and explained in the comments section by well meaning viewers.

Yes, we clearly disagree about independent voters' responsibilities. That's fine. Just know that when you assign blame, many won't accept it.

Yes, I also hope current poll numbers and trends reverse....unless Sanders IS the nominee, in which case I hope current poll numbers remain the same.

What? What argument? Instead of answering? I discussed your two suggestions, and offered two of my own, one being (I think) a more palatable alternative to your tax proposal for steadying markets, the other being campaign reform. To quote myself...
"Tax on investment transactions...you've GOT to be kidding, she'll never consider any such thing, it goes against her own, and her donors interests. A speed limit on trading info so everyone has an equal chance would work better.
The one you didn't mention is the MOST important in my eyes, and also a non starter from her or them....campaign reform...both finance AND how elections operate from districts to electronic voting machines and everything in between."
Is that an argument? It certainly wasn't meant as one.
It was meant as simple and fairly civil (if slightly snarky) answers to your question (answers that I guess you missed), with a note that IMO, my (and likely your) preferred planks are not going to be addressed acceptably by Clinton, and clear reasons why I think that. That was not meant to start an argument, I'm sorry you take it that way.