I don't know much about HEMA, but why would you have a guard that requires you to hold the blade?

I can understand it on a single-edged blade but on a double-edged sword?

Insurance, dude. Look it up.

And no, you shouldn’t be killed for punching someone. They’re entitled to defend themselves, but in a proportional response.

If you punch me, and I hit you back and you trip and crack your skull, well, that sucks for you, but I’m not in the wrong.

But if you punch me and I pull a gun and shoot you without warning, I’m guilty of man slaughter at the least.

I'll go further. I'd rather be burgled than kill someone.

If someone broke into my house and tried to steal my TV, as long as they weren't trying to hurt me or my family, hell, I'd help them carry it.

It's just stuff and it's not worth taking a human life over.

and also *quality

kurzgesagt = automatic upvote

WTF does Hillary have to do with any of this?

Let's be very clear here. No-one is talking about banning guns (and if anyone is, they can fuck right off). Guns are useful tools. I've been target shooting a few times, I have friends who hunt. I wouldn't see their guns taken from them because they are sensible people who use guns in a reasonable way.

What we are talking about is a reasonable level of control, like background checks, restrictions on certain types of weapons, etc.

BTW, you might want to actually read the 2nd amendment.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

None of these people are in a well-regulated militia, and in 2017 "a well regulated militia" is not necessary to the security of the state, that's what a standing army and a police force are for.

Your seatbelt analogy also makes no sense at all. If I drive around without a seatbelt and crash, the only one hurt is me (I'm still a fucking inconsiderate asshole if I do that, but that's another story). Guns are all about hurting other people, so it makes sense to regulate them.


Fundamentally, the USA needs to grow the fuck up and stop believing "Die Hard" is a documentary.

You are not Roy Rogers.
You do not need a gun for "home defence".
You are more likely to be killed by a criminal if you have a gun than if you don't.
And the most powerful weapon you have against a fascist dictatorship is not firearms, but the ballot box.

The irony is that while your democracy is increasingly slipping away from you (gerrymandering, super PACs, voter suppression), you have a corporate-funded lobby group protecting your firearms.

And yet, gun laws DEMONSTRABLY work in other countries. There are plenty of other countries with high gun ownership rates (Canada, for instance), but nowhere outside the 3rd world has anything like the gun-related death rate of the US.

Meanwhile, you are caught up in some ridiculous fantasy where you save America from imaginary Hitler.

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/6l4l6m/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-scapegoat-hunter---gun-control

edit: fine don't embed the video, then!

Two words easily dismiss your entire argument: predator drones.

Look, there are plenty of other countries with high gun ownership rates, but a few sensible regulations stop this kind of shit happening, and guess what? Those countries aren’t oppressive dictatorships, they’re modern, progressive societies.

Meanwhile, the USA, for all your talk of guns preventing dictatorship is a disgrace. You have have bigoted asshole running your country, your healthcare is barbaric (and they’re trying to make it worse), your tax system is ridiculous and your minority citizens are being criticised for daring to protest about the systemic racism they have to endure.

Gun control won’t make your country “less free”, because it’s already ranked pretty low there. But it will certainly lower the number of mass shootings.

Ok, I'll take once every 40 years.

*quality message

Henry from Minute Physics is usually a pretty smart guy, so I'd be surprised if he was taken in by a scam, but anything is possible I guess.

That is really cool.
I love *clever engineering solutions like this.

I don't understand the presenter.

I literally cannot fathom how (if you were at all into driving) you could watch that and turn down the opportunity to drive in one.

"There's no gravity in space"
Eh, it depends who you're talking to. If you're explaining to kids why things float in space, that's a reasonable approximation. If you're teaching physics to high school students, you're really doing it wrong.

"Trojan horse"
When was this ever presented as fact? I actually remember learning about the search for a possible real world site of Troy and I remember being taught the STORY of this, but given it was in the same story about a guy who could only be killed in the heel, we weren't expected to believe it was 100% accurate. Talking snakes on the other hand? Totally real.

The rest are reasonable enough.

Oh, and in case plans to watch this (and you should) there are no spoilers in the video outside of outlining the basic premise.