Australian Comedian Jim Jefferies on Guns

[post=20868085]hopenotfeariswhatweneed[

Reality is randy if the government came for your guns you would be hiding under your bed in the cradle position wishing you lived elsewhere .....

No esse, the reality is you haven't got a clue
of anything you're talk'n about.
See I don't have any guns. Not one do I own .
Don't have a bed either Einstien. lol

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: intrptr

Thats like saying the only real argument for owning a hammer is because, I like them.

Here we go again, making ridiculous comparisons.

Hammers were not specifically designed to kill anything. It is not their intended purpose. Guns ARE designed to kill things, as it is their intended specific purpose.

I feel like a kindergarten teacher having to explain such simple concepts so regularly.

This is the difference between your paradigm and mine.

A gun is designed to be a deterrent of violence and for general defense.

That requires greater than kindergarten level thinking, so I understand your confusion.

originally posted by: randyvs
[post=20868085]hopenotfeariswhatweneed[

Reality is randy if the government came for your guns you would be hiding under your bed in the cradle position wishing you lived elsewhere .....

No esse, the reality is you haven't got a clue
of anything you're talk'n about.
See I don't have any guns. Not one do I own .
Don't have a bed either Einstien. lol

Just remember while in the cradle position to stick fingers in ears singing lalala

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

A gun is designed to be a deterrent of violence and for general defense.

If guns were a deterrence to violence then why does violence keep occurring?

Sorry for not participating much, but I'm going to jump in for a second here with the "guns deterring violence" point. This is admittedly only homicides, but it's kind of counter to the idea that guns deter things. (Killings, at least.) The US's non-gun homicide rate is higher than the other three countries including their gun homicides (which is weird if you say that guns are a deterrence to violent crime.) If the we assume that guns aren't the issue, then what is it?

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

It doesn't necessarily run counter to the idea that 'guns deter crimes'. The question, of course, is what would US crime rates be WITH heavy gun restrictions. Given the relatively poor police coverage throughout a very large portion of the country, I strongly suspect it would actually be much higher than it is now. I think the fact that non-firearm related homicides are already quite a bit higher than in the other countries shown in the chart provides plenty of evidence for that. At the very least, as criminals turn to other methods, the non-firearm related homicides will undoubtedly increase significantly, and they're already abnormally high.

No, I don't think the firearms are the issue. The vast majority of those homicides, firearm-related or not, are not random. They're a result of an escalation of some other crime in progress, whether it be gang or drug related, robberies, or some type of domestic violence incident or argument among close associates. Rather than focusing on the instrument of crime, we need to be focusing on what causes people to turn to those classes of crimes mentioned above in the first place and finding ways to prevent that instead. Otherwise, we're basically just sweeping the real issues under the rug and pretending that we've solved a problem when we've really just slapped a bandaid on it. And this is all even before we start to consider that gang-bangers, drug dealers, and other violent criminal types are already up to their eyeballs in millions upon millions of illegal firearms, and those aren't going anywhere.

The only thing heavy restrictions on firearms might do is cut down on the number of mass casualty incidents...assuming they don't find another method...but even those are just a small drop in the bucket of the overall homicide rate. I understand the temptation to say 'ban them!' in this instance, but I think it makes more sense to put more effort and resources into identifying the handful of individuals that perpetrate these acts and either preventing them from owning firearms or, if they're that dangerous, getting them off the street entirely than it does casting out a blanket ban affecting the rights of tens of millions of law-abiding citizens.

I like Australians.
But is a step child way.

They dont even deserve respect from the British,
and thats so far below me that I can only have unjustified compassion.

But I do.

originally posted by: jjkenobi
This video has been posted on ATS so many times.

There are many uses for a gun other than killing another person.

Yeah, you can use them to knock in a nail.
WE SHOULD BAN HAMMERs

a reply to: vor78

I've personally come to the conclusion that firearms are an issue, not the issue, and aren't worth focusing on at the moment. Guns might amplify some aspects of crime but ultimately aren't responsible for them, they aren't the root cause. My personal bet is on the economy and culture.

I believe that the US is already past the event horizon when it comes to being able to control guns. They're already saturating the country, there are more firearms than humans. I can't imagine any recollection being feasible if only on sheer size and cost, even ignoring the large percentage of the population that would go nuts if something like that was attempted.

So really, even if guns were the problem, it's a problem that's extremely difficult to treat. Fixing the economy and government corruption is paramount. The crime rate will naturally decrease happiness increases, even if it isn't eliminated entirely.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: vor78

So really, even if guns were the problem, it's a problem that's extremely difficult to treat. Fixing the economy and government corruption is paramount. The crime rate will naturally decrease happiness increases, even if it isn't eliminated entirely.

This is something we can strongly stand together on...

Thats really all I got today..

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Exactly. The root cause is normally the economic conditions and accompanying cultural issues, particularly in the urban areas where violent crime is rampant, that are pushing people toward that type of lifestyle. That's what needs to be addressed. It won't be, because many of the politicians have long since realized that they can exploit those economically challenged, crime ridden areas for votes on election day.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
Sorry for not participating much, but I'm going to jump in for a second here with the "guns deterring violence" point. This is admittedly only homicides, but it's kind of counter to the idea that guns deter things. (Killings, at least.) The US's non-gun homicide rate is higher than the other three countries including their gun homicides (which is weird if you say that guns are a deterrence to violent crime.) If the we assume that guns aren't the issue, then what is it?

Guns don't deter violence. Guns give you a fighting chance (if you have one). If you can find that neat little chart you just posted, perhaps you can find one that shows what percentage of the people who die by the gun were criminals before they were shot?

You see. I have this theory that a large number of our gun deaths here in the US are...

1. Suicides

2. Criminals killing criminals

3. Cops killing criminals

4. People killing criminals.


Other than that. I very much doubt that most people who have no criminal record are out there shooting people. It happens now and then. We have these mass shootings, yes. And I blame a lot of that on the media for fanning the flames and putting ideas into people's heads. It's bound to be having some effect.

But frankly, when you look at the big picture, I'd say the completely innocent victim of gun violence here in the US is actually pretty rare. Of course they shout it from the mountaintops when they have an Orlando because that's all they've got. They will occasionally talk about these other statistics but they really put them in the fine print. The mass shootings are what they want everyone to see. If they start talking about all the other gun violence too much they know smart people will start dissecting the statistics and find out it's not so black and white.

I'm not going to say I completely don't care if someone commits suicide but it's their choice. It's not my life and if they just can't take it anymore, as long as they don't hurt anyone else, it's not my place to stop them.

The rest? Criminals are going to be criminals. Why save them from themselves? If you've got two criminals and one of them shoots the other one, you've got one fewer criminal.

a reply to: BrianFlanders

I don't know that it counts as propaganda unless he is being rewarded somehow for spewing it.
Otherwise it's just somebody's personal opinion.
I despise his opinions but respect his right to have them.
I doubt he is an agent of institutionalized psychological manipulation.
He's just damn funny.
I am optimistic that he'll come around some day because the guy is not stupid.
Maybe he just discovered that being controversial earns him a lot of attention.

Thought I admit if I knew he was going to focus so much on "anti-vaxxers" and gun owners I might
have chosen to skip the live show.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

I love JJ as a comic but as far as your argument.. In America we have the 2nd Amendment. It's not "I like guns".
It's about liberty and freedom. Maybe those words sound like jokes to you. Many have died for what they represent.
Part of the securing of liberty and freedom is unfortunately the need to protect oneself with lethal force.
I personally believe that every living being has as their birthright the right to defend their life and freedom.
If there was a way to make all guns vanish from the world, so be it. People have never failed at discovering ways
to murder others. I don't see how removing guns from responsible people is going to stop that. In fact it seems
rather short-sighted and infantile. So what if there's less shootings in countries who have banned guns. There's
also more control and less freedom, and there's more stabbings and the like. I'd rather be shot than stabbed 50 times if I had to choose.

The overarching point is that the citizens have sufficient means to defend their lives and liberty.
Agree or not, doesn't matter, in the US we have the 2nd Amendment. It's an important recognition of
the inherent right of the sovereign individual to defend themselves against those who would seek to remove
their life and liberty.