Jim Jefferies on gun control

ChaosEnginesays...

Perhaps not the worlds most water-tight gun control argument, but almost certainly the funniest.

Also, he needs to grow his beard back.

lantern53says...

He's funny. But naive.

When the gov't takes all the guns, only the gov't will have guns. I don't like that.

Sounds totally unfair. And don't tell me the politicians are giving up their guns. Those fuckers live by their own rules, while trying to lay other rules on the hoi polloi.

In 1927, a crazed mental killed 38 children at a school...with explosives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

'Most people who force their way in only want your tv'...

well...not everyone!

Every day someone defends themselves from criminal attack with a 'protection gun'...there, see, I just renamed the assault weapon. At any rate...every firearm is an assault weapon. It doesn't fire posies.

As for slavery, Lincoln used GUNS to free the slaves. A soliloquy or well-crafted bit of prose wouldn't quite cut it.

So...the comedian depends on cops (armed with guns) to protect him.

kiwi_coltsays...

Where did he say that?

Eg. In New Zealand you'd be hard pressed to find a cop carrying a gun. They have access to them if needed but it's not normal to see a cop carrying a gun.

lantern53said:

So...the comedian depends on cops (armed with guns) to protect him.

00Scud00says...

Yes, but even if you were able to keep your guns the government still has more guns, bigger guns, drones, cruise missiles, tanks, planes, nukes, pointy sticks (okay we all have access to that last one). Going to war against an oppressive government in the early 21st century would not be the same as going to war against an oppressive government in the late 1700's. Bearing that in mind I'd say that the balance of power is still not even remotely fair.

lantern53said:

He's funny. But naive.

When the gov't takes all the guns, only the gov't will have guns. I don't like that.

Sounds totally unfair. And don't tell me the politicians are giving up their guns. Those fuckers live by their own rules, while trying to lay other rules on the hoi polloi.

In 1927, a crazed mental killed 38 children at a school...with explosives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

'Most people who force their way in only want your tv'...

well...not everyone!

Every day someone defends themselves from criminal attack with a 'protection gun'...there, see, I just renamed the assault weapon. At any rate...every firearm is an assault weapon. It doesn't fire posies.

As for slavery, Lincoln used GUNS to free the slaves. A soliloquy or well-crafted bit of prose wouldn't quite cut it.

So...the comedian depends on cops (armed with guns) to protect him.

heropsychosays...

So many things wrong with this argument...

A. I don't see politicians going around shooting people with guns, so what on earth does this have to do with the topic?!
B. Yes, yes, we have an epidemic of children getting killed with explosives right now. No, that's right... we have school SHOOTINGS... you know... WITH GUNS! And what do we do about crazy people with explosives?! Have everyone else carry explosives?!
C. Yes, you are correct... not everyone just wants your TV. Yes, in some cases, they're psychopaths, and you'd be better off with a gun than society having sweeping gun control. Also, in a small fraction of car accidents, wearing a seat belt could actually kill you, too.

Do you see the problem with your argument? The very fact that we all can get guns so easily, and the fact they are so pervasive increases the chances of someone having a gun who would like to attack you, and you having a gun doesn't make up for that increased chance. So you can site individual situations all you want, but statistics are readily available that show beyond a shadow of a doubt that sweeping gun control does overall make you safer.
D. Pretty sure his argument wasn't that we need gun control with our military.
E. It's naive of you to believe you're "protecting yourself" by owning a gun, when we know society is safer with sweeping gun control.

lantern53said:

He's funny. But naive.

When the gov't takes all the guns, only the gov't will have guns. I don't like that.

Sounds totally unfair. And don't tell me the politicians are giving up their guns. Those fuckers live by their own rules, while trying to lay other rules on the hoi polloi.

In 1927, a crazed mental killed 38 children at a school...with explosives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

'Most people who force their way in only want your tv'...

well...not everyone!

Every day someone defends themselves from criminal attack with a 'protection gun'...there, see, I just renamed the assault weapon. At any rate...every firearm is an assault weapon. It doesn't fire posies.

As for slavery, Lincoln used GUNS to free the slaves. A soliloquy or well-crafted bit of prose wouldn't quite cut it.

So...the comedian depends on cops (armed with guns) to protect him.

Jerykksays...

Where are the statistics that prove that gun control makes you safer? D.C. has very strict gun control and it has the highest crime rate in the country. Conversely, Vermont has very lax gun control and it has the lowest crime rate in the country. What this proves (at least in the U.S.) is that gun laws don't necessarily make any meaningful impact on crime rates. Even if guns were outright banned in every state, guns wouldn't magically disappear. Most gun-related crimes involve illegally-obtained guns anyway. If criminals can't obtain guns legally (which is already statistically unlikely), they'll just obtain them illegally.

In order for gun control to be effective, it would need to be rigidly enforced. The government would need to actively search for and confiscate/destroy every gun it could find and make sure that guns aren't smuggled into the country. The war on drugs has shown that such tactics are costly and ineffective.

If you want to reduce crime, reduce poverty. Unlike guns, poverty has a direct and irrefutable correlation with crime. A reduction in poverty is GUARANTEED to result in a reduction of crime.

heropsychosaid:

So many things wrong with this argument...

A. I don't see politicians going around shooting people with guns, so what on earth does this have to do with the topic?!
B. Yes, yes, we have an epidemic of children getting killed with explosives right now. No, that's right... we have school SHOOTINGS... you know... WITH GUNS! And what do we do about crazy people with explosives?! Have everyone else carry explosives?!
C. Yes, you are correct... not everyone just wants your TV. Yes, in some cases, they're psychopaths, and you'd be better off with a gun than society having sweeping gun control. Also, in a small fraction of car accidents, wearing a seat belt could actually kill you, too.

Do you see the problem with your argument? The very fact that we all can get guns so easily, and the fact they are so pervasive increases the chances of someone having a gun who would like to attack you, and you having a gun doesn't make up for that increased chance. So you can site individual situations all you want, but statistics are readily available that show beyond a shadow of a doubt that sweeping gun control does overall make you safer.
D. Pretty sure his argument wasn't that we need gun control with our military.
E. It's naive of you to believe you're "protecting yourself" by owning a gun, when we know society is safer with sweeping gun control.

ChaosEnginejokingly says...

So let me get this straight.

D.C. is one of the poorest areas in the country.
And you would have to travel nearly a whole hour to the next state to buy a gun.
And you're telling me that crime is higher here than in one of the wealthiest states?

I am shocked. Shocked, I tell you.

It's almost like being able to buy a gun just across the river isn't really gun control at all....

Jerykksaid:

D.C. has very strict gun control and it has the highest crime rate in the country. Conversely, Vermont has very lax gun control and it has the lowest crime rate in the country.

SquidCapsays...

I live in Finland, one of the top countries on guns per capita. Also one the lowest gun crimes per capita. Very strict gun control, in fact, i can't own a single casing, let alone live bullet. All have to be licensed, all counted, no guns licenses without a hunting or shooting club membership, no guns without proper training. No backyard sales, not even ammo. We have long hunting tradition. Also a long militia background, guns and the need for them are acknowledged in every part of our culture and history, armed uprisings (albeit all of them failed) against oppressive conquerors are our heroes.. And of course that one little squirmish against Soviet Union, we got thru with it with guns. But the tools they used are not worshiped, just appreciated as good tools.

Hand guns are not for hunting and as such, they are even more controlled. No ONE has ever raised an opinion that our freedoms are being oppressed by our gun laws. Overwhelming majority likes them the way they are, only wanting more control on mentally disturbed individuals. Some of course want no guns at all and very small portion wants guns for all. But majority and i mean majority as in +80% are very happy the way things are now. If i want to start hunting or shooting as a sport; i can. I can't, however, get a gun just because i want one.

Also, front doors in Finland are sturdy enough that you can't just kick it in... Something to think about, we got the best locks in the business (google abloy, 99,99% of our locks are ABLOY). In fact, and this is coming from experience, our burglars don't pick locks. They remove the whole doorframe with hydraulic jacks (or remove the whole lockbase and part of the door with tons of force.. or drill the lock)..Locksmiths here don't have lockpicks as the locks are protected very well against lockpicking, in fact abloy is one of the benchmarks on lockpickers and it still takes hours. Instead locksmiths carry a big ass cordless drill with the hardest drillbits you can find; they drill out and replace the whole cylinder and it's noisy as hell. That's what our doors are like, maybe there is some answer there; you don't feel afraid when your front door can take a bear.

Jerykksays...

You should have kept reading. My last paragraph clearly stated that reducing poverty is going to have a much larger impact on crime than gun control ever would.

BTW, you don't need to travel to a different state to obtain a gun in D.C. Like I said before, most crime-related guns are obtained illegally. There are plenty of people willing to sell you (or give you) guns under the table. Just like drugs or even alcohol during the prohibition. The legality of banned products is completely irrelevant and doesn't prevent someone from obtaining them.

ChaosEnginesaid:

So let me get this straight.

D.C. is one of the poorest areas in the country.
And you would have to travel nearly a whole hour to the next state to buy a gun.
And you're telling me that crime is higher here than in one of the wealthiest states?

I am shocked. Shocked, I tell you.

It's almost like being able to buy a gun just across the river isn't really gun control at all....

siftbotsays...

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by Grimm.

siftbotsays...

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Friday, October 3rd, 2014 3:25am PDT - promote requested by ChaosEngine.

Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists




notify when someone comments
X

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
  
Learn More