Jim Jefferies Comedian on gun control

a reply to: HauntWok Statistically 13000 killed by guns is insignificant when you factor in the number of legal gun owners and the fact we are a nation of what 320 million+.

can it be better, sure... education will lower the rate of accidental deaths by fire arms, wont matter with suicides.

As for murderers... *shrugs* what 95% of the time it wont be a legally owned fire arm.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Ah, so you believe there is either guns for all, or a complete ban? No middle ground?

No wonder it's impossible to negotiate with conservatives.

Do you know what we did with automobiles?

We made them safer, we placed harsher penalties on dui's, and we reduced vehicle fatalities.

We understand it will never be zero, we get it.
But we can do SOMETHING, good lord, it's not all or nothing, it's taking steps to fix the problem.

a reply to: HauntWok

Ah, so you believe there is either guns for all, or a complete ban? No middle ground?

Please state where I came even close to saying this? We already have a background check and registration process, to to mention prohibition of automatic weapons unless you have the proper licensing......

No wonder it's impossible to negotiate with conservatives.

Again more mud slinging , and again detraction, this supposition might be valid if I actually stated what you accuse me of above, which I did not...

Do you know what we did with automobiles?

Well people arent advocating them be banned, and they cause more deaths a year then firearms do.....so.....you tell me....

We made them safer, we placed harsher penalties on dui's, and we reduced vehicle fatalities.

We did the same thing with fire arms, we mandated that they be bought only after clearing a background check, we also made it where people could only purchase certain types........we also have gun free zones....

we placed harsher penalties on dui's, and we reduced vehicle fatalities

really

2013 35,244
2012 33,561
2011 32,367

But we can do SOMETHING, good lord, it's not all or nothing, it's taking steps to fix the problem.

yeah we can address the mental health issue in the US

We can try and improve the moral issues that are in a decline in the poor areas of our cities....

We can work to educate people instead of fostering ignorance......

We can address the issues that so often push people to the edge in our society, instead of ignoring them....

I see you failed to answer my question so ill ask again.......

Do you think for an instant that these people would go out and kill innocent people if they were in their right mind?

originally posted by: Onslaught2996

...people are right about one thing..if it makes sense..gun owners don't want to hear it.

Fine don't watch it for the humor, watch it for the sense he is making..watch it all the way through.

This isn't comedy its preaching. Platforming.

Whats really funny is this effort to make Australians the know it alls and exemplars of gun control.

originally posted by: Onslaught2996

You can bring in cars..etc...but tell me..how many cars are out there..and how many people do they kill compared to ownership. Does the small benefits and good they do outweigh the costs of health-care and deaths worldwide...?

Well, since you asked.

Vehicle owned in the United States: 253,639 linky
Number of Motor Vehicle traffic deaths in the United States: 33,783 linky 2

Firearms owned in the United States: 270,000,000 - 310,000,000 - (no link, average of several websites)
Total number firearms homicides: 11,068 linky 3

So yes, you are far more likely to die as result of a vehicle accident than a firearm. Stack on top of that the damage done due to the fossil fuels burned by the vehicles and I would say that firearms are FAR safer.

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Ah, so you believe there is either guns for all, or a complete ban? No middle ground?

No wonder it's impossible to negotiate with conservatives.

Do you know what we did with automobiles?

We made them safer, we placed harsher penalties on dui's, and we reduced vehicle fatalities.

We understand it will never be zero, we get it.
But we can do SOMETHING, good lord, it's not all or nothing, it's taking steps to fix the problem.

Well, seeing as though it is in the bill of rights, the second amendment, and has been affirmed by the SCOTUS as an individual right, there really isnt anything you and your ilk can do about it except cry about in your drum circles and pass the granola around.

The gentleman's comedy routine amounts to little more than sour grapes. In countries where guns are already nearly or completely banned and the citizens have zero chance of reversing that, they pretend that guns are unnecessary and/or too dangerous to be useful. It's much better than admitting that they're totally screwed.

originally posted by: XTexan

originally posted by: Onslaught2996

You can bring in cars..etc...but tell me..how many cars are out there..and how many people do they kill compared to ownership. Does the small benefits and good they do outweigh the costs of health-care and deaths worldwide...?

Well, since you asked.

Vehicle owned in the United States: 253,639 linky
Number of Motor Vehicle traffic deaths in the United States: 33,783 linky 2

Firearms owned in the United States: 270,000,000 - 310,000,000 - (no link, average of several websites)
Total number firearms homicides: 11,068 linky 3

So yes, you are far more likely to die as result of a vehicle accident than a firearm. Stack on top of that the damage done due to the fossil fuels burned by the vehicles and I would say that firearms are FAR safer.

Of those 11,068 firearm related homicides, how many of those are the result of law enforcement operations/personnel and suicides. To count those in with firearm homicide for the argument for gun control would be stacking the deck. People who commit suicide would just find another way to do it.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

I cannot assess the mind if another, murder, self defense, manslaughter, suicide, it's all individual.

You're suggesting that all people that commit murder should be released on grounds of mental defect.

Some are in their right minds when they kill.

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

I cannot assess the mind if another, murder, self defense, manslaughter, suicide, it's all individual.

You're suggesting that all people that commit murder should be released on grounds of mental defect.

Some are in their right minds when they kill.

I suggested no such thing.............you are just refusing to answer the question and trying to deflect back onto me, that I am suggesting something that I clearly did not.......

Thanks for the intellectual honesty

You made a blanket statement earlier about people killing with firearms and mass shootings.......but you state this

Some are in their right minds when they kill.

To suggest that someone who commits a mass shooting is in their right mind when they do it is flat out dishonesty on your part and you know it......

Thanks for playing

This guy has no common sense and is not funny the least bit. He is not a man. He is not an independent man. His type will be the first to die of hunger should he have to survive on his own. He's the type of people who will be looting preppers homes. He is the joke. Did I mention he is not funny at all and has zero common sense? It's none of his damn business what I own. People in his country can't even buy video games that are rated M because of cowards like him. The government is his mommy and daddy and he does as he's told like a good little sheep.

originally posted by: Onslaught2996

originally posted by: redhorse
a reply to: Onslaught2996


Some particular low points; an assumption that teachers would shoot children because children give teachers a hard time

So your so sure a teacher will not have a bad day and just walk in with a gun, if she was legally allowed to, in a class room and start firing?

You can make this guarantee? You would trust you kid in a school with an armed teacher and just hope they are sane and can handle pressure like a normal person?

Well, we could take the gun grabbers approach and fix the situation by putting tighter restrictions on murder, ban felons from murdering, or just ban murder all together.

We all know that when you ban something or make it illegal, it doesn't happen amymore.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

I did answer the question, it's not my fault you don't like the answer.

Some people are in their right minds when they kill.

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

I did answer the question, it's not my fault you don't like the answer.

Some people are in their right minds when they kill.

So do you blame the gun, or the person pulling the trigger?

originally posted by: SM2

originally posted by: XTexan

originally posted by: Onslaught2996

You can bring in cars..etc...but tell me..how many cars are out there..and how many people do they kill compared to ownership. Does the small benefits and good they do outweigh the costs of health-care and deaths worldwide...?

Well, since you asked.

Vehicle owned in the United States: 253,639 linky
Number of Motor Vehicle traffic deaths in the United States: 33,783 linky 2

Firearms owned in the United States: 270,000,000 - 310,000,000 - (no link, average of several websites)
Total number firearms homicides: 11,068 linky 3

So yes, you are far more likely to die as result of a vehicle accident than a firearm. Stack on top of that the damage done due to the fossil fuels burned by the vehicles and I would say that firearms are FAR safer.

Of those 11,068 firearm related homicides, how many of those are the result of law enforcement operations/personnel and suicides. To count those in with firearm homicide for the argument for gun control would be stacking the deck. People who commit suicide would just find another way to do it.

I don't know how the numbers are affected by law enforcement or suicides, but i assumed the vehicle deaths included those killed by law enforcement and suicides as well. For the sake of that post at that time i felt it reasonable to keep them lumped together. Nevertheless, you make a good point.

a reply to: Urantia1111
You know what they want and how it'll really be and they don't see it.

Look at what happen to this Poor Basta#ds.

originally posted by: Onslaught2996
The thing about gun owners is..they never argue any points..just call anyone who disagrees with them an idiot and if you don;t like it..go home...etc.

He even talks about it...and he says "No, I came here legally, pays his taxes and your 1st amendment guarantees him the right to say anything he wants"...

Actually, we argue points all the time - we just never get any good responses.

Also, we don't NEED to argue regarding gun regulations.. OR ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

1. The right of freedom of speech & press
2. The right to bear arms
3. Unconsensual quartering during peace, and illegal quartering during war.
4. The right to be secure in our persons, houses, papers and effects.
5. The right to not answer for a crime.
6. The right to a trial
7. The right to a jury, and the Right to not be charged for the same crime twice.
8. The right to not receive unusual punishment nor fine.
9. The right to not have our rights construed or denied by the federal government.
10. The right to have powers reserve none delegated powers to the states.

We don't have to ARGUE any of these points. At all. We merely have to EXERCISE them.

a. We don't have to pass a psyche test and show a "justifiable need” for why we need to practice free speech.
b. We don't need to fill out an application with attached "substantial evidence" for why we need a jury trial.
c. We don't have acquire a license to show "good cause" for why we don't need to be tried twice for a crime.
d. We don't have to show "good and probable urgency" and for why we don't need our house searched.
e. We don't need to acquire free-speech credits to show "substantial and legal reasoning" for why we need to practice a religion.

f. And you can be damn sure that we don't need to provide "extensive irrefutable reasoning and logically bulletproof evidence" for why we need an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine!

You see, these are all things called protected RIGHTS. We don't need to file applications, get coupons, apply for licenses, redeem credits, or pass a psychological exam to exercise them.

It means you can let us (and more importantly, the government) know how people don't need guns, how they don't need juries, how they don't need free speech, or how they don't need anything else. You can do this all day until the sun stops shining because it's not called the Bill of NEEDS. It's called the Bill of RIGHTS.

You can argue all day that we as citizens who bear arms, should not have the legal power to use lethal force if we witness a forcible felony:

1) Treason
2) Murder
3) Manslaughter
4) Sexual Battery
5) Carjacking
6) Home Invasion
7) Robbery
8) Burglary
9) Arson
10) Kidnapping
11) Aggravated assault
12) Aggravated battery
13) Aggravated stalking
14) Aircraft Piracy
15) Using or placing an explosive device or bomb
16) Or ANY OTHER FELONY that involves the USE, or THREAT of PHYSICAL FORCE or VIOLENCE against ANY SINGLE INDIVIDUAL.

Yes, we as citizens have the legal right to KILL (with our GUNS. The things that are designed to KILL) if we see any of this. I bet you just hate it. I bet you just hate the idea of having an armed population out there because it would just be a better idea to call 911 or tell a criminal, "excuse me sir, don't you know that rape is illegal?".

I'm sure you are aware of the Kleck study by Dr. Kleck, who has a PHd in criminology and has devoted his professional career to reach the impact of guns and violence in America.

I'll even do YOUR part of the job here, because I know you gun grabbers don't like to do actual research. This is the survey where the only criticisms boil down to: "'The people they talked to must have been lying'; '10% of the people answering also said they believed in UFOs'; 'guns are rarely carried by people'; or even that 'most uses of defense with guns involved a crime where the criminal did not have a gun' .

So, the best argument against such a report is that the people answering were lying UFO nuts that don't really carry guns and use them against criminals who don't carry guns either. Makes perfect sense. Let's not forget the other great argument listed against gun ownership in contradiction of the Kleck study: Criminals will steal your guns (I assume this is because it says most criminals don't have guns in the first place!)

vacps.org...

To the actual cited report. You know, the one that shows that:
www.gunowners.org...

1) Armed citizens KILL (with GUNS [designed for KILLING]) more criminals than police do. At least twice as many. With an error rate five times less than police. They KILL CRIMINALS because of those 16 reasons that I've listed.

2) Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Over 92% of the time, the gun IS NOT USED TO KILL. You know, the thing that is DESIGNED FOR KILLING. It doesn't kill over 92% of the time!

3. As many as 200,000 women use guns yearly to protect from sexual abuse.

As I said before, we don't have to argue about any of this. We simply don't have to argue about our protected rights.

We still do argue them in spite of this, because it reminds us that some people actively hate freedom and only want to impose their will, feelings, direction, and thoughts on other peoples' lives.

In the end, you are not merely arguing with us - but with the founding principals and documents of a country - that, without them would not exist in the first place.

Because, let's face it. If the 2nd amendment is ever repealed, you can bet your ass that the country will be too.

a reply to: Answer

Yeah I'm right there with you. It's an act and he knows nothing of the actual debate or how our country was founded in the first place and why we succeeded.

a reply to: WhatAreThey

You say we don't need to arguing the 5th but then list actions that in your mind deserved death?
Do you not see the problem there?
Having guns is fine, using them to kill people for a laundry list of reasons is not.
Due process is just as fundamental as the second, let's not forget that.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: WhatAreThey

You say we don't need to arguing the 5th but then list actions that in your mind deserved death?
Do you not see the problem there?
Having guns is fine, using them to kill people for a laundry list of reasons is not.
Due process is just as fundamental as the second, let's not forget that.

There is something you are not understanding. Those are all forcible felonies.

The average citizen may legally use lethal force to prevent the commission of them. It is not a list that I made up. That particular list is what Florida
and nearly every other state describe as forcible felonies under their statutes.

This is a completely different reason for justifiable homicide than self-defense, castle doctrine, or stand-your ground.

Now, how about that "wild-west" argument?