Australian Comedian Jim Jefferies on Guns

originally posted by: butcherguy

Low tactic?
I am asking a legitimate question.
What business do you have in another country's regulations that have no effect on you?

America butts into the affairs of the rest of the world on a daily basis, yet apparently we aren't allowed to have a say on something that DOES affect us because it appears on our news and distresses those of us who KNOW what the solution is and yet our voices get drowned out in the cacophony of lies and deceit? Some of us may even personally know someone killed in one of the massacres. Yet you claim it has "no effect on us"?

Sorry mate. I'll have my say whenever I damn well please and not YOU or ANYBODY is going to stop me. If you don't like it then I have a really simple solution for you: DON'T READ IT.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Kryties

You were clearly referring to the type of hammer used in construction.

No, you made that distinction. I just said A hammer. In your mind a hammer is only used for construction…

…for purposes of argument, no doubt.

Ahhh. You're using word trickery. A low tactic one resorts to when they have nothing intelligent to say. Gotya.

a reply to: BrianFlanders
Canadians ARE the nicest people around, regardless how American perceive them. I have met well over a dozen and haven't had a bad word to say about them. Kind, generous and thoughtful. But everyone to themselves. I would judge entire nations on a 12 yr olds response on the Internet in future though.

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

Hey, I'm just giving what I get and I've taken a lot of abuse from Australians and Brits over the years without ever really saying much back to them. And I have seen a lot of other Americans just put up with it too.

I say it because it is true. Because they're incapable of minding their own business. They don't live here. They don't pay taxes here and they don't vote here. Simply put, they are advocating the forcible removal of someone else's rights in another country they don't even live in and frankly, that's a bit personal. Mate.

It's funny because he thinks we care.

LOL.

a reply to: intrptr

Hm, I suppose I would. I wouldn't want the other people there to have to suffer death. However, you are totally ignoring the point I was making and going off on a fairly strange tangent, given I have not mentioned the Orlando shooting (which I presume you are referring to.) Though I suppose it is easily able to relate to the context.

This is the point I was making:
Guns exist to destroy, there is no other relevant use for them. Whether it is the perpetrator of a murder shooting their victim, or the victim shooting their murderer, it is destruction all the same. I was under the impression you had said they did anything else, and I apologize of that was not the case.

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: BrianFlanders

I am an Aussie, thank you very much. I couldn't avoid them if I wanted to.

I suppose it's natural that you'd detest us and the Brits because our views on a lot of things are fairly different. When you say they're assholes, do you mean they're assholes because they disagree with you on some fairly explosive issues (LGBT, Guns, Climate Change, etc.) or because they really just act like assholes? Give us some examples. :x

Hey, I'm just giving what I get and I've taken a lot of abuse from Australians and Brits over the years without ever really saying much back to them. And I have seen a lot of other Americans just put up with it too.

I say it because it is true. Because they're incapable of minding their own business. They don't live here. They don't pay taxes here and they don't vote here. Simply put, they are advocating the forcible removal of someone else's rights in another country they don't even live in and frankly, that's a bit personal. Mate.

One's country of birth does not negate their opinions. I'm sorry if you get upset easily, but the internet transcends state boundaries and allows anyone to communicate their thoughts and opinions.

I don't see what the big deal is. Let foreigners have their opinions. In the end, only the US can change its laws. If you don't like it, that's your problem.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Guns exist to destroy, there is no other relevant use for them.

This statement is false.
There are guns used to do things other than destroy.
If you need me to do so, I will post references to guns that do not destroy.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Kryties

You were clearly referring to the type of hammer used in construction.

No, you made that distinction. I just said A hammer. In your mind a hammer is only used for construction…

…for purposes of argument, no doubt.

And if there were no guns we would indeed be focusing on war hammers (not construction hammers) and other assorted weaponry, just like how if there were planet-destroying missiles they would take precedent over nukes.

War hammers are used for destruction, the colloquial [construction] hammer is primarily used for building, though it has the capacity to destroy. Guns just destroy. It is a bad comparison. A better comparison would be explosives, spears, or zweihanders.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Right, and that's why nothing useful in terms of making a meaningful impact on gun crimes and mass shootings will ever be passed.

Meaningful? Guns were illegal in that establishment and the FBI apparently had interviewed this guy three friggin times?

Correct me if I'm wrong…

killers don't care about laws, they are killers.

Laws won't prevent this from occurring anymore than we can prevent lightning from striking.

a reply to: butcherguy

If we are speaking in an extremely broad sense and "guns" include things like nailguns then yes, it would be a false statement. To clarify, I am speaking specifically about hunting rifles, pistols, a typical firearm to which "gun regulation" would apply. Please post references, though. I might be surprised and have to retract my statement.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Guns exist to destroy, there is no other relevant use for them.

This statement is false.
There are guns used to do things other than destroy.
If you need me to do so, I will post references to guns that do not destroy.

Yes please, post your examples.

This'll be fun to watch.......

a reply to: intrptr

I've said before that gun-free-zones without adequate security are ridiculous and pointless. I am not disagreeing with that. Many other posters on this site take issues with people on any sort of FBI watch-list or whatever being barred from obtaining guns, though, even if it seems like an "obvious" thing.

Watch this part of the video again.
I'd be surprised if the Sandy Hook killer could scrounge up 34K all that easily.

It worked in Australia and England, as far as I'm aware.

a reply to: Kryties

Stick to the argument, if you can.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: DanDanDat

I personally consider that an anti-anti-gun argument rather than a pro-gun argument. It's "why gun control is a bad idea right now" rather than "this is why guns are good", if you're willing to make the distinction.

I believe you may have misunderstood me - its inertly my fault as I was very vague in my response; so I apologize.

What I meant to convey is this:

The only real argument for gun ownership as an inalienable right is so that the population can stand up to its government when the need arise.

So in your words that I quoted; the people who start a civil war because they feel their government has gone too far are demonstrating the true need for gun owing population.

Now to be clear; I don’t own any guns, I never have and I likely (hopefully) never will. But I do understand the necessity for them as protection: from the bear in the woods; from the burglar who breaks into your house; from the crack house down the road; from the tyrannical government who became tyrannical through incrementalism; from the foreign army that has invaded your home.

I understand you don’t agree with me; I know why and respect why you don’t agree with me. But to boil the need for gun ownership down to “I just like guns” and to ignore the legitimacy of the needs outlined above is nave. “I just like guns” is not why guns have become an important part of American culture and until those who wish to see gun reform take place accept this they will never make any head way. However if they do acknowledge these legitimate concerns and involve them when creating their polices for reform; I think they will find a more receptive population.

Now I understand how for many of us living our comfortable lives in our comfortable western countries that it might be difficult for us to relate to the need for protection against our own governments or protection form an invading army. Most of us alive today have no frame of reference with which to contemplate such ideas and so sure gun ownership, if it’s not part of your culture, can seem dumb.

But the truth is that our comfortable lives in our comfortable western countries is a knats @ss when compared to human history of violence and subjugation. We are only fooling ourselves if we think we have evolved from our past … maybe we have; maybe we will never have use our guns against our government (I sure hope so) … But it is simply way too early to tell.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Guns exist to destroy, there is no other relevant use for them.

Most things can be used lethally under the right circumstances.

First and foremost of all of course, is intent. If this guy couldn't use firearms he might have driven a car up on the sidewalk outside while patrons were waiting to get in.

Or started a fire, poisoned the salad bar, whatever…

Murderous intent finds a way.

As an Aussie living in the states, I'm sorry to say, they are too far gone here.......

Leave them to it with the guns, they will never know how unsafe I feel here compared to home, there is no way to put it across, there are too many guns here and the delusion they protect you is too ingrained.

Let them have them.
400,000: Americans who died fighting in World War II.
400,000: Americans who died by household Firearms since 2001

1.4 Million: Americans who died in all Wars fought since 1776.
1.4 Million: Americans who died via household Guns since 1968

You can't do anything about guns, its too far gone here.

Let them have at it.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

And if there were no guns we would indeed be focusing on war hammers (not construction hammers) and other assorted weaponry,

You may or not be aware that the variety of Martial arts weapons sprang from Chinese and Japanese laws restricting private possession of swords, cross bows, etc. They tried arms control back then, too.

Every Empire does (has) done that.

And every empire winds up on the ash heap of history. Eventually the subjugated rise up from within and burn it down.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: butcherguy

If we are speaking in an extremely broad sense and "guns" include things like nailguns then yes, it would be a false statement. To clarify, I am speaking specifically about hunting rifles, pistols, a typical firearm to which "gun regulation" would apply. Please post references, though. I might be surprised and have to retract my statement.

Thank you for clarifying. You were using the term 'gun' in an extremely broad sense.
Since you have clarified, I will not need to post references to all of the guns that are not used to destroy.

originally posted by: zazzafrazz
As an Aussie living in the states, I'm sorry to say, they are too far gone here.......

Leave them to it with the guns, they will never know how unsafe I feel here compared to home, there is no way to put it across, there are too many guns here and the delusion they protect you is too ingrained.

Let them have them.
400,000: Americans who died fighting in World War II.
400,000: Americans who died by household Firearms since 2001

1.4 Million: Americans who died in all Wars fought since 1776.
1.4 Million: Americans who died via household Guns since 1968

You can't do anything about guns, its too far gone here.

Let them have at it.

I starred your post.

but this part:

As an Aussie living in the states, I'm sorry to say, they are too far gone here....... Leave them to it with the guns, they will never know how unsafe I feel here compared to home,

You are an Aussie.... feeling so unsafe here in the US.....

Yet, here you are.

Eeeek!
It must be so scary.

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Guns exist to destroy, there is no other relevant use for them.

This statement is false.
There are guns used to do things other than destroy.
If you need me to do so, I will post references to guns that do not destroy.

Yes please, post your examples.

This'll be fun to watch.......

I have before, if I am not mistaken, it was in a reply to one of your posts.