PUBG w/ Hat Films - 27th February 2018

[@ZorroLocoStudios]

I love how at 41:47 they were talking about popups and banner ads and a fucking popup appears on Ross' screen. H I V E M I N D and the computer is in on it!

[@Adam-jq7cg]

I live in South Africa, technically a third-world country, and we don't have to worry about school shootings at all. We are better off than America in that regard.

[@PandaBear0509]

Western Australia still has Lynx

[@goosejuice9890]

Start 0:07

[@rorydark2970]

Yes Man 4000 ur a legend mate

[@kutchinka4062]

6:04

[@tomawesomeface5552]

Listening to people from britain, a comical dystopia, talk about weapons and gunpowder rifles, oh boy

[@deathvalley_boys]

This is not a dig at any of the Hat Films boys or anything. I absolutely love the Hat Films and they really have helped me through some tough times, but I just wanted to add my piece that will 100% go unnoticed, but like most people it makes me feel comfortable to express my opiinon anyways. So just speaking from experience living in rural America. A lot of people fear the knee jerk reaction of "ban all guns" because some of them actually use their guns to eat. Several of the families out here live off food stamps and hunting deer. And any state you even have the ability to purchase a fully automatic weapon in, it is very, very difficult to obtain a lisence and is an extremely expensive process. In the majority of states you must be 18 to purchase a long rifle, and 21 to purchase a handgun. The process for both require a background check. According to some statistic legally owning concieled carry users are less likely to commit a crime with their weapon than a police officer. Most of the statistics about gun deaths in America do not exclude suicides with a gun, and those make up a large majority of those gun death cases. Not to mention according to the CDC there are a lot more lives saved by guns per year (Successful defensive use of guns) than lives lost. Now I don't have a problem with teachers carrying guns at school. I believe they need to be trained a specialist needs to be hired by the school to check the weapons every day, make sure safety is on, possibly unloaded etc. I also believe that if teacher were armed, and this could extend to outside teachers, they should have to go through a monthly mental health check. Now the trick is defining what would be unfit to carry a gun.

[@benn2026]

Smiff shoulda switched to the 2x scope instead of the 15x

[@tissuewater]

I know this might be unrelated, but they did talk about this on the livestream... I just can't fathom why they want to straight up arm teachers with guns, why not ballistic shields, or body armor and helmets? Sure some shields are ineffective against other more powerful guns but holy fucking shit.... Why guns?

[@TylerDaltonShaw]

Austin's a beautiful city but it's quickly becoming unlivable due to the shit highway system and how many people move here each day. I'm from San Antonio, it's boring no doubt so I get the comments (although I think the comparison between the River Walk and Amsterdam's canal system is a bit lop-sided lol). But Austin's getting crazy packed over the last decade, it's getting to the point that tourists don't even want to deal with the traffic.

[@freddieskeates281]

Tell that to Kanja Klub

[@clairetellkamp6253]

I love how they talk about solutions to American gun control, without fully understanding the reasons behind opposition. We dont want to give up our guns because we literally have an inalienable right to own arms. That, they seem to sort of understand. What fhey dont seem to understand is that the righg is inalienable because we have the right to form militias to rise up against the government in a case of the government turning tyranical. Thats why blafk powder weapons, like muskets, WERENT specified. The founding fathers foresaw the changes America will go through, understanding weapons will advance, and so allowed us to have the advanced weapons. Because you cant overthrow a tyranical world superpower with a musket.

[@clairetellkamp6253]

Graywolf Exactly. The people claiming the government will always stay perfect are both the same people claiming it's a dictatorship now, and the ones pushing for a stronger central government. Its like three layers of bullshit.

[@DKJones96]

And as far as the regular guns being useless against an army... Afghanistan and Iraq haven't exactly been cakewalks and most of that is because of the armed population.

[@clairetellkamp6253]

DKJones96 Exactly my point. An armed population can keep a government from becoming tyrannical, keep them ftom taking away our natural rights, like owning guns. The people that want to take them are the same people that are trying to take other natural rights as well. Arm the population and you can contest those trying to lord over you. Some of the strongest dictatorships in the world started out by banning the ownership of weapons.

[@kingnaga619]

If you think clutching you AR and hiding in your barn is going to stop the military from killing you, your an idiot.

[@kingnaga619]

Which defeats the purpose of every person in the country owning a military grade assault weapon. All giving everyone a gun does is encourage people who won't be responsible with them to have them. Military grade weaponry shouldn't be in civilian hands. The point of the 2nd amendment is to avoid government tyranny, but the problem is what you just stated. The military as a whole would never do it because their loyalties are to their families amongst the people before a faceless government. Keep your glock or your pump action, that's fine. You don't need a fucking assault rifle to protect your home. A shot to the head is a shot to the head, plain and simple. And the idea that a large portion of gun owners (and the people who claim to represent them in the NRA)'s first reaction to the deaths of half a dozen innocent children is "They're coming for MY guns" is selfish and disgusting.

[@adriansanada3549]

The idea that the military would comply with orders to drone strike the citizens of the United States in the event of a revolution is ridiculous. Many people within the military are from the families that would be revolting against a tyrannical government. You also forget that the military is currently made up of volunteers. If they decide to leave then they can at any point. You give the order to fire lethal rounds on civilians and authorize the usage of drones on American soil then you divide the military in half and only further bugger yourself. The second amendment is still relevant because you cannot mobilize and stop an insurrection if it happens on a national level. There'd be too many fires to put out.

[@GIGHD]

History finds that in civil wars there have always been government loyalists that fight rebels that may even be from their own communities.

[@adriansanada3549]

GIGHD True, that's why I said half and not all.

[@GIGHD]

Nonetheless, you'd have local militias against a tyrannical government with a full nuclear arsenal and a highly trained military. The obvious reply is: "look at Vietnam", but that would neglect the memory of all of the people that were killed in that conflict and others like it. If you want to prevent tyrannical government you need a politically active population that would peacefully oppose such an uprising. Defense is only ethical if the minimal force is used against the oppressor/attacker to subdue them, which is almost guaranteed not to happen if everyone has a lethal weapon.

[@adriansanada3549]

GIGHD You misunderstand how this would work. The first part you neglect is reaction time by the U.S military. It'd be the national guard that would respond to the initial fighting. If the government has turned tyrannical then there will be those who will join the rebels and those who wouldn't. The latter might kill the former and the former might kill the latter. Or they may decide to abstain from the conflict altogether. Also the idea of the U.S government using nuclear arms against armed citizenry is laughable. The same applies to drone strikes, tanks, and arial strikes. The reason for this is that if they do this then the US government declares itself a failed state and our political rivals across the pond will have a field day in helping rebels dismantle the government in attempts to get a new government that is amenable to their side. Or they might take the opportunity to do as they like in other parts of the world. I disagree with that assessment that defense should only be the minimum use of force. I'd much rather be certain that the person breaking into my house never gets to see tomorrow. They made a choice and it had consequences.

[@GIGHD]

Tienanmen square, Chilean revolution, Spanish revolution, Ukrainian revolution all examples of when the government has used tanks and/or aerial strikes against its citizens. You couldn't possibly predict what the outcome of all out civil warfare would be. The only thing that is certain in this kind of scenario is that thousands will die, which is not a desirable out come if other means of rebellion can be made available if there are widespread changes made to gun laws.

[@createdfireinhd4068]

First

[@CNrite]

If you don’t think the American people (who are armed) could stand against the government then you’re seriously underestimating the amount of people who own guns in America.

[@GIGHD]

The only ethical course of action when defending oneself is the one which results in the least harm being done to both the attacker and the defender. Giving the public lethal weapons to defend themselves does not facilitate this.

[@GIGHD]

Nonsense, the principle is founded in Utilitarianism. If someone breaks into your house, then it is your right to defend yourself, to the point at which the attacker can no longer do you harm. Which does not entail that you should kill them if they happen to pose no threat at all. Go back to your logic.

[@CNrite]

GIGHD Hey if you're one to consider waiting and just golly maybe this person breaking into my home is here to sell me cookies, is a logical way of thinking I'd love to live where ever you live. However, houses are most likely expensive on fantasy make believe island.

[@GIGHD]

You misunderstand the argument. If someone breaks into your house and you choose to kill them when there are other available means of subduing them (non-lethal weapons that British police, for example, carry), then that is unethical. Gun ownership does not encourage people to incapacitate attackers non-lethally.

[@GIGHD]

Their right to life is equal to yours in all circumstances except those wherein they threaten your right to life. A non-lethal means of subduing an attacker should always be preferable unless that attacker threatens your life. It is not moral if in a situation where you could preserve someone's life you choose to kill them instead. Misjudgments and accidents will always happen, but they are of no moral consequence, choice is the primary concern.

[@bulletprooftomato3766]

lol Read more

[@konker420]

I can't stand the political shit. play the game

[@obidylan]

i don't think you watch much hatfilms or the yogscast in general

[@adriansanada3549]

obidylan Because now it's kinda only turned into politics

[@Zooropa_Station]

says the stoner

[@XxStuart96xX]

I agree to an extent. They can for sure discuss whatever topic they want but that 5+ minute section around the 2 hour mark on Smith's cam was a bit tedious. I get PUBG is a game with a fair amount of downtime in the middle but he wasn't even concentrating on playing the game.

[@someperson3601]

XxStuart96xX if you don’t like it don’t watch it