Jim Jeffries - Gun Control

[microphone head]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBpuLlw4Xjs"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBpuLlw4Xjs[/ame]

I realize this is going to polarize board members but I still think it's funny and worth a watch.

 

[gooey]

Since Australia banned semiautomatic rifles, shotguns and pump action shotguns the gun crime rates have skyrocketed throughout the country.

• Murders committed with guns increased by 19%.
• Home invasions increased by 21%.
• Assaults committed with guns increased by 28%.
• Armed robberies skyrocketed with an increase of 69%.

Aus also rapes 3 times the womans than in the US

 

[charlesmartel]

Without guns how are you going to overthrow a government? With sticks and shovels?

 

[charlesmartel]

Since Australia banned semiautomatic rifles, shotguns and pump action shotguns the gun crime rates have skyrocketed throughout the country.

• Murders committed with guns increased by 19%.
• Home invasions increased by 21%.
• Assaults committed with guns increased by 28%.
• Armed robberies skyrocketed with an increase of 69%.

Aus also rapes 3 times the womans than in the US

Exactly. Criminals don't obey laws by definition. Outlawing gun ownership only affects law abiding citizens. Criminals don't give a rat's ass about laws.

 

[ActionJackson83]

The "good points" he made were absurd to say the least. Listen to some of the things he says: "Are you just ready all the time?" Uhhh yes dude pretty much, you dont have to have a holster to carry a gun. I dont even own a holster but I almost always cc. If I'm at home I always have a gun within arms reach. Yes I'm always ready.

"They probably just want to break in for your tv, not to murder your family!!" Dude ??? lol you have got to be kidding me!!! If someone breaks into my house I think its reasonable that I have the right to defend myself with a firearm. Period. I don't care what the fuck they want why the fuck would you even make that argument??? That is some ass backwards criminal enabling philosophy. Yeah there's tons of morons with guns, psychos, mentally ill, whatever.

That doesn't mean I lose my rights. You can't take away the knives. You can't take away the iron bars, you can't take away the rocks. Yet you think it's ok to take the guns? Give me a break Ass bag.

So what if the government has drones? Who cares, citizens can build drones and even own drones if I'm not mistaken, who cares. Just look what ISIS has done to Syria with nothing but guns and shitty explosives to start out with, they have beaten the military and taken over dams, airports, done mass executions, beaten the army at times to take over vast regions in that part of the world. The bad guys have guns. ISIS is driving by shooting up cars with full auto AK47s with children in the car, shooting families in the head, dragging the bodies out of the car and then driving off with the dead family's vehicle.

Fuck that, try that in America and you won't get away without return fire. The entire skit just shows many people clearly have an irrational outlook on guns.

 

[Andrew Scherer]

FUCK YOU I LIKE MY GUNS

 

[Rotalihinna]

Listen, I don't give a shit about your "rights to own guns". It's bullshit, and I would totally be OK with it if tomorrow the government made a law that said owning anything more dangerous than a fork is illegal, given the government can prove me that it will decrease the HORRIBLE murder rate in the US.

US's murder rate puts it on par with third world countries. Hell, I recently moved from a huge city (10+ million people in a 50 mile stretch) in a semi-third world country to a small city in the US, and statistically I'm 300 percent more likely to get murdered now. What the fuck?

I'm all for people not getting murdered. If "fewer people getting murdered" means you don't get to own a gun, I will totally shit all over your gun ownership rights, because in that case your gun ownership rights would be causing more deaths than necessary.

The problem is, I'm not at all convinced that more gun control is effective in decreasing murder rate. Some European countries have way more guns per capita than others and there doesn't seem to be a statistically significant difference in murder rates.

US's homicide problem is because of 1.) Gun culture 2.) Huge income inequality and thus poverty.

Poverty is not the only determiner of homicide rate, not by a long shot. But when you have a lot of impoverished places/areas/neighborhoods combined with a 200 year old gun culture, this is what you get.

Some places in the EU also have a big gun culture (Switzerland and Finland come to mind), however, these are more prosperous nations than the US, not in terms of total wealth per capita, but in terms of much more even distribution of wealth. This keeps their "impoverished population" percentage extremely low, thus avoiding the deadly gun culture + poverty combo.

Gun control and "war on drugs" are similar issues. War on drugs is a big failure. So we know that trying to control drugs / punish offenders has failed miserably. What makes us think doing the same thing on guns is going to work?

 

[Rotalihinna]

"They probably just want to break in for your tv, not to murder your family!!" Dude ??? lol you have got to be kidding me!!! If someone breaks into my house I think its reasonable that I have the right to defend myself with a firearm. Period. I don't care what the fuck they want why the fuck would you even make that argument??? That is some ass backwards criminal enabling philosophy. Yeah there's tons of morons with guns, psychos, mentally ill, whatever.

Here's the thing (without even getting into a moral debate of whether it's justified to kill someone because they want to steal your TV)

If someone breaks into your house to steal your TV and you scare/confront them with a gun, the chances of YOU dying at the end of this encounter increases like what, tenfold? Compared to doing nothing?

Just staying in your room and let them do whatever the fuck they want might sound counter intuitive, and it might sound like you're a huge pussy, but you're not in high school any more, neither are you trying to impress anyone with how not a pushover you are - this is real life and it's a matter of life and death.

Again not even getting into the debate of justified/unjustified killing. My OWN life is much more valuable than my TV, my laptop or whatever material goods I have lying around my house, and when I confront a robber my chances of getting killed suddenly increases from maybe 0.1% to what, 10, 20%?

 

[learningcurve]

Since Australia banned semiautomatic rifles, shotguns and pump action shotguns the gun crime rates have skyrocketed throughout the country.

• Murders committed with guns increased by 19%.
• Home invasions increased by 21%.
• Assaults committed with guns increased by 28%.
• Armed robberies skyrocketed with an increase of 69%.

Aus also rapes 3 times the womans than in the US

Not sure where the fuck you get these completely incorrect stats from, but like Chopper Reid said, "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story." It's more like a steady decline where we have now reached a plateau:
Victims of violent crime (rate per 100,000)

Have your guns, I don't really give a fuck. I know there is not much chance of me or my children ever having a gun waved at them, let alone becoming the victim of a murder via a gun toting lunatic.

I actually hate this debate in any form tbh. It's pointless because neither side never actually tries to find and common ground to work from. My only real concern is the young people being killed; at one stage (for around seventy eight weeks actually), the U.S. was averaging one school shooting a week. Say what you will, but that's just not fucking right.

http://uk.pinterest.com/pin/create/extension/

 

[charlesmartel]

School teachers should be allowed to pack heat. That would cut down on the number of school shootings.

 

[learningcurve]

School teachers should be allowed to pack heat. That would cut down on the number of school shootings.

I actually chuckled at that. Thank you for proving the point. The only answer is more guns apparently.

I do believe the term 'going postal' refers to disgruntled employees shooting up their place of work. A school is probably the last place you would want a student or a teacher to have a gun.

http://uk.pinterest.com/pin/create/extension/

 

[charlesmartel]

I do believe the term 'going postal' refers to disgruntled employees shooting up their place of work. A school is probably the last place you would want a student or a teacher to have a gun.

Going postal refers to postal workers going on shooting sprees. Schools in the US are gun-free zones, which makes them perfect targets for criminals. Most, if not all, of the shooting sprees have taken place in gun-free zones.

 

[marketermac]

Not sure where the fuck you get these completely incorrect stats from, but like Chopper Reid said, "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story." ........

at one stage (for around seventy eight weeks actually), the U.S. was averaging one school shooting a week. Say what you will, but that's just not fucking right.

Maybe you should check your facts...the "one per week" nonsense included a ton of stuff that most wouldn't consider a "school shooting" in the sense of crazed mass murderers wandering the hallways, but rather included any shooting that was even in the proximity of a school and not directed at any students:
America Isn't Becoming More Violent - Business Insider

the way you put it is pretty deceptive. check out the nice graph at the bottom of the article that clearly indicates that there is no trend (upward or downward) for the last 35 years in mass shootings nor victims.

the bureau of justice statistics actually issued a report showing that schools were getting steadily safer since 1992:
Why America's Schools Are Safer - Business Insider

I actually chuckled at that. Thank you for proving the point. The only answer is more guns apparently.
http://uk.pinterest.com/pin/create/extension/

I also have no idea how you stop someone once they have decided they are going to kill people at random short of lethal force. You honestly think even if all guns disappeared the lunatics that commit these crimes are going to be like "welp, this seems pretty difficult now that I can't find a gun to shoot people, maybe I'll just lead a life as a decent human being" and they won't think up some other way to accomplish the same goal?

 

[learningcurve]

Going postal refers to postal workers going on shooting sprees

And don't they shoot their fellow workmates in most cases? Do you miss the point here?

Schools in the US are gun-free zones

And you would like to add guns to the mix??

which makes them perfect targets for criminals.

I'm not certain but I am led to believe that most school shootings revolve around troubled youth, who in most cases, don't have any criminal record. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the Columbine boys didn't have criminal records, just as one example.

Most, if not all, of the shooting sprees have taken place in gun-free zones.

Is there such a thing in reality in the U.S.? Serious question. t seems to me that 'gun free zones' can quickly become gun toting zones due to the availability of firearms.

BTW, I'm not having a go at you, I simply want to engage in civil conversation about something I have a hard time understanding.

 

[learningcurve]

Maybe you should check your facts...the "one per week" nonsense included a ton of stuff that most wouldn't consider a "school shooting" in the sense of crazed mass murderers wandering the hallways, but rather included any shooting that was even in the proximity of a school and not directed at any students:
America Isn't Becoming More Violent - Business Insider

the way you put it is pretty deceptive. check out the nice graph at the bottom of the article that clearly indicates that there is no tre't have to be worried about bend (upward or downward) for the last 35 years in mass shootings nor victims.

the bureau of justice statistics actually issued a report showing that schools were getting steadily safer since 1992:
Why America's Schools Are Safer - Business Insider

Herein lies one of the dilema's as far as I see it; depending on who wants to put a spin on what, numbers can almost tell any story you want.

The truth of the matter is that I don't have to worry about getting shot. Neither do my kids at school.

List of school shootings in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Maybe you should check your facts...the "one per week" nonsense included a ton of stuff that most wouldn't consider a "school shooting"

Define "school shooting". Does it have to be a student, a teacher, a random member of the public? Does someone have to die? Injured or simply shot at?

http://uk.pinterest.com/pin/create/extension/

 

[marketermac]

Herein lies one of the dilema's as far as I see it; depending on who wants to put a spin on what, numbers can almost tell any story you want.

I completely agree.

List of school shootings in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'll admit I just skimmed through the most recent two years to get an idea

Define "school shooting". Does it have to be a student, a teacher, a random member of the public? Does someone have to die? Injured or simply shot at?

I would think a practical definition would be students or teachers who are engaged in the normal practices of the school (learning, teaching, sports, etc.) being shot at with the intention of harming them, which would exclude gangs, husbands shooting their wives, accidents, etc.

I have zero solid evidence to back up this claim, but I feel like the other incidents were labeled school shootings because it gets better ratings when the news reports it that way. Just a cursory look over the wikipedia lists shows that either before 2009 gangs didn't exist or commit murder in or around schools, or that afterwards those acts got labeled as school shootings.


I still have zero idea how you stop someone intent on killing random people, weather they are welding knives, guns, or rocks, without lethal force or the threat thereof.

It seems counter intuitive that you are telling me these lunatics are on the rise and at the same time I shouldn't be allowed the most efficient means of defending myself as a responsible, law abiding person because they might have access to these same means. Short of them coming at me with a tank, at least I know I'd have a chance we are both on a level field.

 

[charlesmartel]

It doesn't matter if a person has a criminal record. They're committing criminal acts. If teachers were allowed to pack heat, they'd have a chance to shoot the perps. Don't go to a gun fight with pencils.

Some of the gun-free zones are by law. Others are by choice. The Aurora, Colorado theater shooting was in a gun-free zone. Restaurants, fast food establishments, etc can prohibit people with guns from entering. I don't have a problem with that since they own the establishments. However, if the shit hits the fan it will be nasty.

Ebert: Gun-Free Theater Proves Concealed Carry Doesn't Work

If someone wants to kill people, they'll do it whether they have guns or not. They can burn down buildings or they can stab as below:

Student Stabs 21 People at a High School Outside Pittsburgh

If someone starts shooting, others nearby will hear it. If someone starts stabbing, there's usually a delay which costs even more lives.

 

[learningcurve]

It seems counter intuitive that you are telling me these lunatics are on the rise and at the same time I shouldn't be allowed the most efficient means of defending myself as a responsible, law abiding person because they might have access to these same means. Short of them coming at me with a tank, at least I know I'd have a chance we are both on a level field.

I'm not telling you that you shouldn't have a gun, just engaging in some conversation. I think the idea of taking guns away is too far gone now for it to ever happen. I also happen to agree with Mr Jefferies, that you may actaully need your guns against your own government one day.

All I see here is a dilema, and I simply don't see the soultion to it being to throw more guns into it.

There has to be somewhere in the middle where people can meet when discussing this particular problem.

 

[learningcurve]

It doesn't matter if a person has a criminal record. They're committing criminal acts. If teachers were allowed to pack heat, they'd have a chance to shooting the perps.

Same could be said of any teacher that may snap one day with a firearm in his possession.

If someone wants to kill people, they'll do it whether they have guns or not. They can burn down buildings or they can stab as below:

True, but after a bomb which is more likely to cause mass casualties a firearm is the next most efficient tool to kill in large numbers.

If someone starts shooting, others nearby will hear it.

Not everyone will act the way you think they will and the possible shoot-out that ensues may claim even more lives, but I get your point.

If someone starts stabbing, there's usually a delay which costs even more lives.

One person with a knife is far more easily restrained than a person with a gun. That particular incident is its own seperate case. If Martin Bryant (Port Arthur, Australia) had tried to stab 35 people instead of shooting them, as he did, he more than likely would have found hiimself restrained or knocked the fuck out not long after the first victim.

 

[-God-]

*various supporting arguments* *various contrary arguments* *mention Hitler* *add some propaganda* *use stats that are clearly a bit funky* *mention rights* *forget simple fact that guns kill and no matter how you doctor America's figures, and the figures of other countries* *forget guns are seriously fucking evil* *forget kids shoot up schools as guns iz gud and it happens in loads and loads of other developed countires like all the time and stuff*