Jim Jefferies Stand Up Comedian On Gun Control

And here we go, the pulling (*)(*)(*)(*) out of your arse and attributing it to the other person tactic.

 

Yes... because a modern American public won't allow civilian deaths. Wasn't any problem when you could bomb 200,000 odd civilians into the ground in two days (Dresden), but in modern times, it's an international case if you hit one by accident. I promise you, if it wasn't a containment war, and America could bomb who they chose for victory, the Iraq war would've been over in a few hours. And I don't see how the Founding Father's success in the revolutionary war has any relevance to that point. The only weapons either side in the war were employing were rifles.

 

I concede your point but only assuming that we would also bomb all of the oil producing areas, and that the politicians in power are for Genocide. (Lets not kid ourselves, most people know the real reason we went into Iraq.)

If you read about the revolutionary war it didn't start out that way. Rifles yes, but real artillery and an unlimited supply of power and ball was not to be had for the Colonials. You must also consider the training of both sides in the equation for this discuss. The British were a well training and well disciplined force with near unlimited resources behind it. The Colonials were farmers, blacksmiths........your common man. So for this example I believe they qualify.

 

I guess, my American History knowledge is limited to that of my High-School days (Oddly to the Civil-Rights movement, not that it wasn't an Important event, but rather everything taught in the Australian History curriculum was very progressive and ultra left-wing, now that I reflect upon it, I'm kind of resentful as to the bias) ;especially that of the Revolutionary War; so unless I look it up and hold retention of any of the knowledge that may be used in argument- I'll assume you're right. It's far too late in the Australian night do be endeavoring in such things.

 

And cannons.

 

Credibility, he couldn't even site a single source for his information and called all of mine out, even when I proved to him his were wrong. Then couldn't let go of me using a source from 1993 but accepted information fron 1977 and anytime after up to 1992 and post- 1994 so maybe you should just keep to yourself when you have no idea whats going on.

 

Only liberals take comedians seriously.....

 

while lacking a sense of humor.......... we call that cognitive dissonance.

 

Hahaha you might actually be the first right wing comedian. And no larry the cabel guy and jeff foxworthy don't count they're about as humorous as a catholic school nun.

 

I really expect most UK/AUS types to have about the same opinions on guns (with the exception of more enlightened folks like Mr. Panzer....). You have been force-fed the same anti-gun propaganda from your press and politicians.


All the advances in firearms over the last 100 years haven't made that much difference in increased firepower. Our famous gangsters from the 1920's and 1930's used weapons that are now around 100 years old. The 1911 Gov .45 auto handgun. (I have one and it now holds 8 instead of 7). The BAR that fires a 30.06 from a 20 round mag, and the Tommy Gun that fires .45 pistol rounds from up to a 50 round drum. Modern "assault type" rifles like the AR-15 didn't become more popular for civilian use until later in the 1970's (they still account for only a fraction of "gun deaths"). High capacity handguns didn't come around until later in the 1980's. Crime patterns in the US have nothing to do with the advances in gun tech or gun control laws.

View attachment 29691

Crime began to skyrocket in the early 1960's because of demographic changes and the liberalization of the criminal justice system. Tougher laws have made a differnce (nationwide) from violent crime's peak in the mid 1990's. But the shear number of 30 round AR rifles and 15+round handguns that are now so popular haven't made crime any worse. Of course Liberals have made great hay over the 600 deaths from famous mass shooting events over the last few decades---but Chicago alone had around 500 murders just in their city alone recently in one year. The chances of being shot in a mass shooting are less than being struck by lightning. The real danger lies in being in or near one of dozens of "Non-White" urban hellholes. For all small advances in weapons over the years, the broken and liberalized criminal justice system cannot bring crime down to the levels before the 1960's in these places.

In 2012 there were 244 murders in your country of 22.68 million. In an area of similar ethnic diversity (trading out Abo's for Native Americans), South Dakota had 15 murders for 845,000.
http://dci.sd.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=8RdpLmTYOUQ=

At about 2 per 1000,000---the murder rates are about the same---given that South Dakota is awash with large amounts of politcally incorrect weapons. So the rural, gun infested areas of the US are just as safe as your country---without having to be disarmed. I support NO infringments on gun rights for law abiding citizens. Zero. Machine guns, okay. Silencers, okay. Magazines---limited by technology. I don't support citizens having tanks, attack helecopters, fighter jets and so forth (no nukes though) unless they are an officer in an organized militia and have a background check. What I do support is having all repeat, violent offenders hanged after their 3rd+ violent felony conviction, or other heinous crime conviction---all within 6 months of trial.

 

OK so just ignore the point where I and the comedian say that just liking them is a totally sufficient reason for allowing them. Fine, I will revise myself, The only REAL reason gun enthusiasts love guns so is that guns are a vicarious substitute for the manhood they feel lacking in themselves. Anybody who has ever talked to one of them about their paramours....er...collections, can instantly recognize the look and demeanor that overcomes them about a minute into the conversation (and boy, is it creepy, but I digress). I , personally, feel sorry for people who feel they have to buy what God gave me upon birth at the gun store, but what the hell. It's just when their aberrations finally catch up to them and they go slaughter children or shoppers for no reason that I get upset.

 

just who is "they"

 

*Sigh* So, for comparison, you chose the state with the lowest homicide rate? (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state). Regardless, I live in rural Australia, and we've seen our fair share along with with cities. What do you mean to say? You need to go live in a remote area to reduce the likelihood of being shot in the states?

 

I think gun control is reasonable. I also think being allowed to own firearms is reasonable. Where the two should meet is the question.

 

LOL he lost credibility when he tried to use some 1993 stats...it's a waste of time discussing things with the desperate.

 

Jimbo wished with all his being to say something very sensible, but knew not how...

 

I think that both of these can be accomplished in a way if the two sides could come to a logical compromise. Canada has come pretty close to this, though the long gun registry failed pretty hard. I think the banning of semi-automatic weapons is a good start as well as limitations on hand guns and carry rights in public. When one side refuses to compromise in any way then no one can ever really know if change can happen because it's never been given a chance.

 

LOL I ignore trolls, you should too!

 

your ad hom method of what you call "debate" has been run over so many times in this forum, you're just practice..............if this is your best, you have already lost this debate.
primenumber, indeed
btw, your membership into the US is at risk......prolly just ought to stay in Canada where none of this affects you, personally.
You do realize that OUR Bill of Rights is none of your concern...........and the other feller was right. ignore is where you belong...

 

I chose the US state that most closely mirrored the demographics of your country. If you were to magically erase all of the dozens of violent urban killing zones in the US---the violent crime rates would be fairly close to that of Australia and W. Europe. My whole point is to focus on the people doing the killing---not the guns.

You are partially right, that living in the countryside, on average, is going to be safer that living in a city. Some of the safest cities in America are very near some of the worst. Irving California is a suburb of Los Angeles and is at the top of the list of safest---whereas parts of Los Angeles like Watts and South Central are quite nasty places with large gang activity and history of riots.

Being a former Boy Scout I live in peace but stay perpared for about anything.

 

Hmm, increased concealed carry permits have been associated with LOWER murder rates. Why would we want to ban concealed carry?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ate-drops-as-concealed-carry-gun-pe/?page=all
http://articles.latimes.com/1996-02-19/local/me-37579_1_violent-crime-rates

 

It has happened before. Just don't mention to NRA members that their beloved organization used to write and support gun control legislation. It gets their camouflaged thongs in a bunch.

 

Kinda like Mayors Against Self Defense? Or any other anti-gun organization.........you'd just like to take away our 1st A as well by trying to shut us up. And then you'd support warrantless searches based on vengeful claims disguised as a community well wisher. What's next, prison camps and mass executions for any gun owner?