Twitch suspends streamer for discharging a firearm on air

[wiyosaya]

Yep, I agree. Hence I said "as long as it's not used". So what is the solution here? Ban anything and everything that can cause damage? Rocks will soon be illegal! Because we know it's the object that kills people - not the people who use it... haha. Whoa well, wait. We have self-wrecking cars killing people. Where are the people trying to ban guns not trying to ban those?

The trouble is that no matter how much any individual tries to secure something like that, that individual may not ultimately be able to control its use - that why I said "someone who has had a few too many jumps your fence and hot-wires your tank." You left your tank there - its the apple in the tree to some. That's the good old Murphy's law, and human nature, and perhaps US culture, in action.

You do realize that it is already illegal to use a rock as a premeditated assault weapon, yes?

There's already oversight of your favorite topic, self-wrecking cars. I am sure you recall that the NTSB spent quite a bit of time and money investigating your self-wrecking car.

By your reasoning, then, we should not pass laws against things like using a cell phone while driving a car? How about not using seat belts? What the heck, how about just eliminating all laws requiring safety features in a car? Far more people are killed in cars every day than are killed by self-wrecking vehicles, and far more would be killed if cars were allowed on the road without safety features.

With stupid prevalent in the US, I could just imagine if the US eliminated any and all gun control laws.

Perhaps we should just remove all laws requiring doctors to not have a medical license, or even go to medical school for that matter, yes?

You cannot fix stupid, but it can be made much more difficult for stupid to get their hands on things that can hurt them, and that is precisely the reasons for medical licenses and safety features in cars and laws restricting access to dangerous things.

Japan has some of the strictest gun control laws on the planet, and according to this article, gun deaths in Japan rarely exceed 10 - per year.

Japan has almost completely eliminated gun deaths — here's how

A recent spate of mass shootings has prompted renewed calls for gun control in the US. Japan may offer some insight into preventing future attacks.

www.businessinsider.com

Contrast that to the US where millions of people scream about their constitutional rights to bear arms which helps make guns ubiquitous and then blame stupid for the problem. 500 deaths per day is an approximate death rate per day in the US https://www.statesman.com/news/2019...gun-deaths-are-there-per-day-in-united-states

If you ask me, stupid already is the problem.

Care to look up how many are killed in self-wrecking cars per day? Never mind. I'll do that for you, but I'll give you a hint - it is far, far, far less than 500 per day. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_self-driving_car_fatalities

I am sure you will see, if you read that article on Japan, that part of the success in Japan eliminating gun deaths is attributed to Japanese culture. It makes just as much sense to say that part of the problem in the US is because of US culture and all those millions of people screaming "my second amendment rights".

 

[texasrattler]

I think the majority missed the whole point. A few saw it. The gun didnt do anything, the id*ot holding the gun is the problem. He couldnt stop drinking. The alcohol didnt fire the gun, he did that. If you cant handle alcohol, dont freakin drink. He did what he did to get more viewers, it back fired. He will pay the price n likely never ever be much of a streamer ... oh wait YT n mixer are calling. Im sure they will take him. Afterall hes a top COD pro. Its all about money in the end.
I find it funny that all these so called pros out there n ive hardly ever heard of most of them till they do something stupid.
Now if only twitch actually banned ppl who break their own rules daily, oh wait theyd never have ppl that could stream then.

 

[EClyde]

LOL

 

[Puiu]

It's not a right to perform negligent discharges. It's a right to keep and bear arms for purposes of defending against tyranny of overreaching government per history and tradition circa 1776.

No amount of firearms will protect you from the government. At this point it's just a "tradition" that kills innocent people. Even good intentions can easily lead to a tragedy. It's not 1176 anymore.

If you need more than a simple air gun with pellets or a stun gun to defend yourself then you are probably doing something wrong. The police and army should not be outgunned by civilians.

I never understood why an ordinary US civilian is allowed to buy multiple rifles or high caliber firearms. It's a miracle that the police is even able to intervene against such individuals (and unfortunately it almost always leads to a shootout and death, usually the assailant). The entire world thinks that's retarded and the facts say that the world is right.

 

[bandit8623]

That's great. It also put the gun in the hand of a drunken twitch streamer that shot his own monitor. Very lucky nobody was hurt.

I am sure he bought that weapon to defend himself against the tyranny of the current U.S government and it's massive standing army. That must still be a pressing need in the current political climate. ?

But unfortunately this is how they actually end up being used most of the time these days it seems. I know legislating for stupidity is difficult, but come on.

Stupid comment.. Most? Do you on know how many Americans have guns? And this is how they are used? Plus the amount of people in places like chicago with guns illegally committing crimes vs guns people own legally.

 

[Burty117]

Japan has some of the strictest gun control laws on the planet, and according to this article, gun deaths in Japan rarely exceed 10 - per year.

Japan has almost completely eliminated gun deaths — here's how

A recent spate of mass shootings has prompted renewed calls for gun control in the US. Japan may offer some insight into preventing future attacks.

www.businessinsider.com

Something I've learnt on Techspot when it comes to American's and their guns. It doesn't matter what facts or proof from other places in the world that show gun crime dramatically drop by removing the guns. They will always scream second amendment and for some reason, no one in America can stand up for themselves without a gun, Always so extreme.

 

[bandit8623]

Something I've learnt on Techspot when it comes to American's and their guns. It doesn't matter what facts or proof from other places in the world that show gun crime dramatically drop by removing the guns. They will always scream second amendment and for some reason, no one in America can stand up for themselves without a gun, Always so extreme.

When there haven't really ever been guns is different than a society that has had for a long time. Are you going to go into Chicago and take all the illegal guns that are there already ? Nope.. They basically are a gun free zone. That has a bunch of criminals that have guns illegally. Gl enforcing.

 

[candle_86]

Well I also missed the part where the constitution said all of it is forever and eternity with no amendments or considerations for the future.

Are you some kind of prepper or doomsayer? I am genuinely interested in alternative viewpoints.

The language and intent matter, at the time it was the ability to call up the militia that won American freedom. Militia at this time meant any able bodied person, every make was required by law in the colonies to own a musket. The word militia did not mean national guard or official state militia. It was your duty if you where a citizen of Virgina or Carolina to own a musket and to present yourself for service if the militia was called up.

Now why that right was enshrined has everything to do with the British attempts to confiscate those personal muskets during the March on Lexington and Concord. The foundered realized that to ensure freedom you need an armed population.

Now you might say a trained army could beat an armed populace. Did it work in Vietnam? Why did the Germans or Japanese plan to contain America instead of outright invade it? Because as they said their would be a gun behind every blade of grass. If a tyrant took office that was so offensive that civil war happened the American military wouldn't be able to put it down.

300+ million Americans at least half own guns and even just 10% of those is still 15,000,000 guns vs the current 2,000,000 soilders and airmen and that's if the military doesn't fracture like it did in 1861. That's the point of the 2nd amendment it means we can choose to free of tyranny. If a tyrant took over in Europe or Asia their isn't an armed population to stop them and that's why they have tyrants.

Now I will stand with my fellow Americans and I won't surrender my arms. I would rather die free in a firefight with the government than die old and in chains.

 

[umbala]

Yeah, this guy is a real winner. You can tell by the seemingly endless trendy garbage peppered all over his room.

 

[umbala]

Anyone who doesn't know how to properly handle and check a weapon shouldn't own one. Trigger discipline and safety checks were not applied in his situation. Treat a gun as if though it is always loaded. He didn't, thinking it was unloaded but here we are now... Play stupid games, get stupid prizes.

The video would've been much funnier if he accidentally shot himself in the foot and not his monitor.

 

[Puiu]

The language and intent matter, at the time it was the ability to call up the militia that won American freedom. Militia at this time meant any able bodied person, every make was required by law in the colonies to own a musket. The word militia did not mean national guard or official state militia. It was your duty if you where a citizen of Virgina or Carolina to own a musket and to present yourself for service if the militia was called up.

Now why that right was enshrined has everything to do with the British attempts to confiscate those personal muskets during the March on Lexington and Concord. The foundered realized that to ensure freedom you need an armed population.

Now you might say a trained army could beat an armed populace. Did it work in Vietnam? Why did the Germans or Japanese plan to contain America instead of outright invade it? Because as they said their would be a gun behind every blade of grass. If a tyrant took office that was so offensive that civil war happened the American military wouldn't be able to put it down.

300+ million Americans at least half own guns and even just 10% of those is still 15,000,000 guns vs the current 2,000,000 soilders and airmen and that's if the military doesn't fracture like it did in 1861. That's the point of the 2nd amendment it means we can choose to free of tyranny. If a tyrant took over in Europe or Asia their isn't an armed population to stop them and that's why they have tyrants.

Now I will stand with my fellow Americans and I won't surrender my arms. I would rather die free in a firefight with the government than die old and in chains.

You are just stretching the truth and spinning facts to justify something that is not needed anymore.

Spoiler alert, 300 million Americans won't go to war. Spoiler alert, if 300 million Americans were to go to war (absurd as that is) they would amount to zero. Spoiler alert, your way of thinking is not based in reality.

You might as well argue that you need guns because your founding fathers intended for the average american to fight martians in the year 2100 and which, for some weird reason, are all using muskets.

High powered firearms have no place in the hands of civilians. If you need a gun then a small airgun sidearm is enough to defend yourself, you don't need rifles and 50 cal deagles.

This kind of thinking is why, sadly, mass shootings have become common place in the US. Tragedies like that keep happening because a minority of people want guns in their life when the whole world thinks it's stupid (and yes, that also includes the majority of US households which don't own a gun)

 

[lumbeeman]

I missed the part where he said anything about banning guns.

TyPiCaL rIgHt, thinking everyone on the left wants to completely ban guns.

You not caring about your neighbor owning guns/nukes as long as they don't hurt anyone is a complete fantasy. Sorry bud. Your american neighbors are hurting each other every day.

I own guns, I shoot them for fun and keep them to protect my household. But arming the 1d10ts isn't helpful.

Thank you for being someone with reading comprehension and critical thinking skills.

 

[Boredaf]

Thing is the problem is not the gun you can injure anyone with pretty much anything like a pen or a baseball bat or whatever. The thing is lack of education on it look at Switzerland they know how to shoot and how often you hear anyone going on shooting rampage. Ok Switzerland is a nice place with all the mountains and all but point remains they teach the young kids how to shoot. And explain things pretty much every Swiss citizens can gun.Here in UK you can't get a pepper spray if your own one without permit you can get deported if your imigrant or just jailed if you are a citizen or get a fine.

 

[candle_86]

You are just stretching the truth and spinning facts to justify something that is not needed anymore.

Spoiler alert, 300 million Americans won't go to war. Spoiler alert, if 300 million Americans were to go to war (absurd as that is) they would amount to zero. Spoiler alert, your way of thinking is not based in reality.

You might as well argue that you need guns because your founding fathers intended for the average american to fight martians in the year 2100 and which, for some weird reason, are all using muskets.

High powered firearms have no place in the hands of civilians. If you need a gun then a small airgun sidearm is enough to defend yourself, you don't need rifles and 50 cal deagles.

This kind of thinking is why, sadly, mass shootings have become common place in the US. Tragedies like that keep happening because a minority of people want guns in their life when the whole world thinks it's stupid (and yes, that also includes the majority of US households which don't own a gun)

I could care less what the world thinks, and no my thinking is spot on. Also if you read I said even 15million in an uprising would suppress and defeat the military. I do not trust the government or law enforcement to have my best interests in mind. I know the response time to an armed robbery is 7 minutes in my area and 7 minutes is a long time. I also can not drop a deer is a pellet rifle or stop a bad guy with a gun with an air rifle. Your attitude makes you a victim plain and simple. An unarmed population is easy prey. I will reserve the right to defend myself with lethal force and to provide a check on government over reach.

The fact is I own and will not surrender my AR-15, 30-06, .22 long rifle, .357 Magnum, or Grizzly Big Bore .50. there is no law that could be enacted which will cause me to surrender them and any attempt to confiscate will be meet with deadly force. These are also the views expressed by legal owners and my state government. Texas has already promised if Washington trys to gun grab state police and courts will offer no assistance and state police will have authority to arrest federal officers attempting such a gun grab, while the states national guard will be directed to take no orders from Washington in violation of state law.

Want to stop mass violence, put your kids back in church and start discipling them again. We wouldn't have mass shootings if those kids where raised right.

 

[cliffordcooley]

It's not a right to perform negligent discharges. It's a right to keep and bear arms for purposes of defending against tyranny of overreaching government per history and tradition circa 1776.

Do a research and ban everything used in a violent/negligent fashion. I think you will find guns are the least of your worries. And in the end we would have nothing, I repeat nothing, to do our work with. We would literally be back in the stone age. And even then the stones would be an item in the list of things with violent/negligent usage. You need to climb off your gun control BS an start blaming our inherent flaw to be violent/negligent. All else are just tools used. Ban one tool we will find another tool. It is as simple as that.

 

[JimboJoneson]

I think the majority missed the whole point. A few saw it. The gun didnt do anything, the id*ot holding the gun is the problem. He couldnt stop drinking. The alcohol didnt fire the gun, he did that. If you cant handle alcohol, dont freakin drink. He did what he did to get more viewers, it back fired. He will pay the price n likely never ever be much of a streamer ... oh wait YT n mixer are calling. Im sure they will take him. Afterall hes a top COD pro. Its all about money in the end.
I find it funny that all these so called pros out there n ive hardly ever heard of most of them till they do something stupid.
Now if only twitch actually banned ppl who break their own rules daily, oh wait theyd never have ppl that could stream then.

I don't think the fact he was drinking even comes into play. You don't "play" with guns; they're not fricken toys ... period.

I'm all for better regulations, like required safety training, cool down period for new purchases, etc. Guns aren't the problem, I know that ... but systems that easily allow immature, untrained, and uneducated people to own them, is.

 

[poohbear]

It's not a right to perform negligent discharges. It's a right to keep and bear arms for purposes of defending against tyranny of overreaching government per history and tradition circa 1776.

Ok... but it's the 21st century, so citizens should bear arms in proportion to the weapons of current governments. So, we need to have rocket launchers, tanks, fighter jets, missiles, and yes Nuclear weapons. Firearms alone aren't gonna cut it anymore.

That is what the founding fathers wanted right? A vigilant citizenry that could stand up to the government, so that 2nd amendment really needs to be upgraded to 21st century standards please and thank you.

 

[cliffordcooley]

Ok... but it's the 21st century, so citizens should bear arms in proportion to the weapons of current governments. So, we need to have rocket launchers, tanks, fighter jets, missiles, and yes Nuclear weapons. Firearms alone aren't gonna cut it anymore.

You have a fair point but that strengthens our need in protecting ourselves from governments. And that was the point in giving people the right to bear arms. Governments continued to strengthen as we were happy to only bear small arms. Small arms are the only thing we can use to defend ourselves from their overwhelming power growth.

I hope you can see how that question strengthens the need in gun ownership. Guns are a tool to help keep governments in check. And for the most part it is working. Just look at how hard they are working to take them away. Every little incident is compounded into a mountain. When in the end the person that usually gets hurt is the one that chose not to carry.

 

[candle_86]

Ok... but it's the 21st century, so citizens should bear arms in proportion to the weapons of current governments. So, we need to have rocket launchers, tanks, fighter jets, missiles, and yes Nuclear weapons. Firearms alone aren't gonna cut it anymore.

That is what the founding fathers wanted right? A vigilant citizenry that could stand up to the government, so that 2nd amendment really needs to be upgraded to 21st century standards please and thank you.

Actually you can get a license to own all but the nuke, you have to pass a background check and pay the 200 fee, the you need to be able to afford the weapons system in question, the only limit is it must have been produced prior to 1986. I have a friend who legally owns an RPG-7 and has the license to prove it. Got another that legally owns a German flak 88 and has anti air flak shells for it, again he has the proper license.

 

[captaincranky]

The trouble with that is that maybe someone who has had a few too many jumps your fence, hot-wires your tank, and then turns your house and who knows what else into a pancake...[ ]...

So then, since you consider yourself somewhat of a progressive, I prithee tell us, which should we outlaw first, booze, or tanks?

 

[Evernessince]

I'm being snarky, but I missed the part where the amendment says "only for old times". The way I see it - you can have your own nuke and I wouldn't care - as long as it doesn't hurt anyone or damage others' belongings. There is a whole lot the government does/has we don't know about either. It seems I may be one of the last generations to know what it was like before all of the ridiculousness. We truly are in the End Times. The prophesies keep coming true and will continue to.

It should go without saying that the founding fathers could not predict that humans would invent weapons that have the capability to kill millions within an instant.

Much like how the supreme court rules on issues with the constitution as the world changes, it's an elastic document meant to change over time.

You can quibble about what you thought the founder father's were thinking at the time but ultimately taking an over 200 year interpretation doesn't really help your position. I should remind you that many of the founding fathers were slave owners and women didn't have the right to vote at the time.

 

[Puiu]

I could care less what the world thinks, and no my thinking is spot on. Also if you read I said even 15million in an uprising would suppress and defeat the military. I do not trust the government or law enforcement to have my best interests in mind. I know the response time to an armed robbery is 7 minutes in my area and 7 minutes is a long time. I also can not drop a deer is a pellet rifle or stop a bad guy with a gun with an air rifle. Your attitude makes you a victim plain and simple. An unarmed population is easy prey. I will reserve the right to defend myself with lethal force and to provide a check on government over reach.

The fact is I own and will not surrender my AR-15, 30-06, .22 long rifle, .357 Magnum, or Grizzly Big Bore .50. there is no law that could be enacted which will cause me to surrender them and any attempt to confiscate will be meet with deadly force. These are also the views expressed by legal owners and my state government. Texas has already promised if Washington trys to gun grab state police and courts will offer no assistance and state police will have authority to arrest federal officers attempting such a gun grab, while the states national guard will be directed to take no orders from Washington in violation of state law.

Want to stop mass violence, put your kids back in church and start discipling them again. We wouldn't have mass shootings if those kids where raised right.

That's just crazy talk. "15 million uprising" - this is fiction at best, but normal people call it insanity. FYI you don't have a "right to use deadly" force unless absolutely necessary and even then it can be considered excessive force and you ARE acting outside of the law.

The fact that you talk about "deadly force" as if it's normal shows that you are someone who should not be allowed to have weapons. Trigger happy with crazy ideas and a lot of tin foil hats: the recipe for tragedy and mass shootings.

Congrats on showing everyone why they should confiscate your guns and the insane lengths some people are willing to go to keep their high powered weapons.

Deadly force... so stupid

 

[candle_86]

That's just crazy talk. "15 million uprising" - this is fiction at best, but normal people call it insanity. FYI you don't have a "right to use deadly" force unless absolutely necessary and even then it can be considered excessive force and you ARE acting outside of the law.

The fact that you talk about "deadly force" as if it's normal shows that you are someone who should not be allowed to have weapons. Trigger happy with crazy ideas and a lot of tin foil hats: the recipe for tragedy and mass shootings.

Congrats on showing everyone why they should confiscate your guns and the insane lengths some people are willing to go to keep their high powered weapons.

Deadly force... so stupid

Wrong here in Texas I can use deadly force if you break into my home or your posing a danger to someone in public. The fact of the matter is if someone breaks into my house while I'm home they are leaving in a body bag, as it should be. I get it your not American, and your an ex Soviet state citizen. And no 15 million isn't crazy or unrealistic, the climate here is fractured, neither side trusts the other and a civil war wouldn't be hard to start.

 

[Puiu]

Wrong here in Texas I can use deadly force if you break into my home or your posing a danger to someone in public. The fact of the matter is if someone breaks into my house while I'm home they are leaving in a body bag, as it should be. I get it your not American, and your an ex Soviet state citizen. And no 15 million isn't crazy or unrealistic, the climate here is fractured, neither side trusts the other and a civil war wouldn't be hard to start.

You can do the exact same thing with a normal airgun that shoots metal pellets. You can easily kill with it. You don't need a freaking AR15, that's for going to war. Anyone who says otherwise needs to have his guns taken since he is 100% crazy. People like to think that they still live in the wild wild west... it's 2020, wake up from your fantasy.

 

[cliffordcooley]

it's 2020, wake up from your fantasy.

If only it was that simple. The person aiming to do you harm probably doesn't think that way either. I don't know about the next guy. But I would use deadly force if I didn't see another way out. The authorities wouldn't be so bold while knocking in doors. If they lived by your sentiments. They will knock in your door and shoot you dead just for acting surprised. That story alone makes me want to own firearms.