Australian Comedian Jim Jefferies on Guns

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: Klassified

I've watched all the anti-gun videos I can take. I've seen and read all of the arguments the anti-gun crowd has to offer.

The topic of this thread is the 2 videos and any specific points you agree or disagree with - and why. If you refuse to watch the videos then we cannot have a discussion on any of those points.

I've spent my time in these threads over the years. Seriously, I've tried to look at both sides of this debate with an open mind. After much thought, I respectfully disagree with those who think this is a step forward in social evolution.

But it really doesn't matter what I think. Disarming the U.S. citizenry IS going to happen. You folks will get what you want, and you'll find it doesn't stop there. Giving up rights is easy. Getting them back seldom happens.

Yep. OK. Whatever. What does that have to do with the content of the 2 videos specifically?

I disagree. The topic of the thread is about disarming the American citizens. The videos are the fodder to that end. I've heard his arguments, and I've seen yours in this thread. I've spoken my piece into the void, and I will now respectfully bow out, and agree to disagree. Have a good day, Kryties.

originally posted by: Klassified

I disagree. The topic of the thread is about disarming the American citizens. The videos are the fodder to that end.

The thread title is: "Australian Comedian Jim Jefferies on Guns". Some of the points he makes do regard what you state but he also makes other points.

If you're not going to fully watch the videos I'm not sure how we are supposed to have an on-topic conversation regarding the validity of any specific points he makes.

I've heard his arguments,

No you haven't because you refuse to watch the entire 2 videos.

and I've seen yours in this thread. I've spoken my piece into the void, and I will now respectfully bow out, and agree to disagree. Have a good day, Kryties.

OK. I tried to have an on-topic conversation with you and you are backing away. Fair enough. Have a good day.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Kryties

Yes it can be changed.
The difference is the change in the USA would come from the citizens and not forced by the government.

Forced by the government at the urging of citizens and groups such as the American Medical Association, for one. Plenty of your own citizens are calling for common sense and a rational argument. Pity powerful groups like the NRA pour money into lobbying to silence those citizens. Democracy in action eh?

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Why would you post this?

This guy is a comedian first, and apparently an ignoramus about firearms second.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Is he an ignoramus due to incorrect factual information, or because he disagrees with you? I have come across the unfortunate tendency of people to blur the lines between the two.

a reply to: Kryties

I havent seen a single rational argument about it since the orlando shooting... what I see is think of the children... or you monster you wont give up your guns to save lives..or some variety of that.

Most of the "information" I've seen thrown about since the shooting werent even accurate for this shooting.. yet I am supposed to sign off on sacrificing some part of my constitutional rights, for perceived security??

No thanks, I am perfectly happy with the additional risk to preserve liberty for my nieces and nephews.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Why would you post this?

Because it's funny. And true. Double whammy.

This guy is a comedian first,

Well spotted.

and apparently an ignoramus about firearms second.

Specifically what points does he make that are ignorant?

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Kryties

I havent seen a single rational argument about it since the orlando shooting... what I see is think of the children... or you monster you wont give up your guns to save lives..or some variety of that.

Most of the "information" I've seen thrown about since the shooting werent even accurate for this shooting.. yet I am supposed to sign off on sacrificing some part of my constitutional rights, for perceived security??

Did you watch the videos? He makes roughly 14 minutes of rational arguments, using humour as the delivery.

What specific points do you agree or disagree with from the videos?

No thanks, I am perfectly happy with the additional risk to preserve liberty for my nieces and nephews.

Good to see you're willing to risk other peoples lives to do so. I'm sure the 52 Orlando victims gained some comfort from that.

a reply to: SlapMonkey
Australia have done quite well since the withdrawal of its guns. What's ignoramus about that? He sees it's benefits and has seen the good come of it. He has the same views as many other countries. Difference is the mentality of the nation's.
Guns work in countries where the people are trained and bought up to respect the weapon. Unfortunately not all people in america have had this instilled to them when they are young, hence all the bad press throughout the world.

I could say you ignorant because you fail to acknowledge the success in Australia.

a reply to: Irishhaf
Liberty for your nieces and nephews won't help them if they were in a gay club in Orlando recently. Are you only possessing a gun to protect your nephews from a tyrannical government. No. So stop the constitutional BS cos it's not a need, it's a want.
"Bit criminals will still have guns" is your next point no doubt. All I can say is of course they will...what's your point. It's a child like response.

They should just do a battle royale for all the pro gun people. Those that survive can keep there guns, but they will see the world has changed for the better when they reemerge.

As Jim said, the same type of gun used for the Sandy Hook massacre was 34 grand in the Australian Black Market.

Organized criminals would still have guns. Of course they would, I'm pretty sure they have them here. But the thing is... Organized criminals don't tend to commit mass shootings.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
As Jim said, the same type of gun used for the Sandy Hook massacre was 34 grand in the Australian Black Market.

Organized criminals would still have guns. Of course they would, I'm pretty sure they have them here. But the thing is... Organized criminals don't tend to commit mass shootings.

Our bikie gangs have guns. But as most Aussies know bikies tend to shoot each other, they don't really bother the rest of us. It's a bit of an unspoken rule: Ignore them and they'll ignore you. I actually know a few bikies and they are nice blokes.

a reply to: Kryties

Watched it before felt it was weak sauce then..

and there you go with an emotional argument... "think of the victims" to fix it we will blame and punish law abiding citizens..

thanks for proving my point.

a reply to: GemmyMcGemJew

I posses guns because I hunt.. i back country hike.. and its a constitutionally protected right, thats why I own firearms.

It is one of the liberties I hope to pass on to them, along with freedom to worship what they choose, and the freedom of speech.. (unreasonable search and seizure is toast, and apparently some people on this board want due process to go away)

eta: just saw this gem..

So stop the constitutional BS cos it's not a need, it's a want.

Have you actually read the constitution???

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Kryties

Watched it before felt it was weak sauce then..

I'll ask again. What specific points do you disagree with? And why?

I keep asking this question in the thread and none of you seem to want to answer. Instead you deflect, stall and some even insult - anything but answer the simple question, which happens to be on-topic. If you disagree with the videos it shouldn't be too hard for you to state those specific points that you disagree with, and your reasoning why, so that we may have an on-topic rational discussion.

and there you go with an emotional argument... "think of the victims" to fix it we will blame and punish law abiding citizens..

thanks for proving my point.

SOMEONE has to think of the victims. Judging by your comment you're happy to see more of them as long as you don't have to give up any of your guns. Before you deny it, look at what you wrote:

originally posted by: Irishhaf

I am perfectly happy with the additional risk to preserve liberty for my nieces and nephews.

a reply to: Kryties

Roughly a year ago a bikie from the Rebels sat in the middle of a street in Geelong (major city in Victoria) to cut off traffic so that my stepfather's funeral procession could move smoothly. Kind of a dick move for the people who needed to get somewhere fast I suppose, but not many people would do that.

I'd say it's fairly likely that most surprisingly are good people... So long as you aren't on their bad side.

People who have guns are citizens and without they are subjects. Aussies and Brits are both subjects with no gun rights.

originally posted by: Irishhaf

Have you actually read the constitution???

Are you speaking of the 2nd Amendment? I presume you are.

You should probably take note of the word "Amendment".

Prohibition and Slavery were also in the American Constitution. They were repealed when common sense prevailed. So it looks like the Constitution CAN be changed when necessary, regardless of how loudly some people proclaim otherwise.

a reply to: Irishhaf
Got no problem with hunting. That's where rifles are needed.anything above that is not necessary .

Have you read the constitution? So apart from hunting (no problem, should be aquired through hunting licenses, but just me), you genuinely believe the government will try to other throw the people? You have a gun to protect your family members from the government? You know how obsurd that sounds right? So if it's not for that reason , it is a WANT. What rights do you have to bear arms outside of this amendment?

The coast guard will not attack you in your sleep if this is the paranoid basis for the need for a gun.

-Right off the bat; comparing Australian culture to American is false equivalency.
-Then he went to think of the children…
-He was wrong with I like guns is the only reason to own guns, home defense in rural areas is very much a need,(45 mins to an hour+ response time for cops) there are people in America that must hunt year round to keep meat on the table, also a lot of us prefer wild game to heavily treated store bought crud. Then there is back country hiking, if you aren’t armed and you’re in cougar/bear/snake country your stupid.
-Then he apparently misunderstands the difference between living in a house and living in a flat in England.
-Then he goes on about how people breaking in just want to steal your stuff… as if violent breakins never occur.
-Then again think of the children… I don’t have kids, so a kid isn’t likely to pick up my gun and shoot anyone. Also I grew up in a house without a gun safe, me and my sister never tried to play with the guns, so what has changed… kids used to be able to be trusted now we act like they cant be trusted to dress themselves.
-Then about the school bs… highschool I went to every vehicle in the parking lot had guns in it… nobody shot up the school… most of our teachers were armed, the school resource officer had a gun.
-He assumes his points are right, and assumes I disagree with him because he’s foreign… I could care less.
-Slavery was never enshrined in the constitution, again apples and potatoes.
-You cant just walk into a Walmart… and pick up an AR variant, you still have to go through a back ground check… which he glossed over.
-Apparently he doesn’t understand history… Nepal, Vietnam, are just 2 examples of soldiers wildly outgunned that won, so his drone argument falls flat as well.
-Lastly it’s a comic show; that’s a really bad place to look for law inspiration.

Like I said weak sauce... he was playing up to his crowd, typically big city people are afraid of guns (see I can generalize also).

He is actually a pretty good comic, I just dont care for this routine because it was tailor made for his audience, and because I knew the first time I saw it people would use it as an example for Gun control.