Aussie Comedian Jim Jeffries: the best gun nut routine ever

[Plane]

  The link worked for me today.

  Guy has great delivery , quite funny.

  No grasp of the numbers tho...

[Xavier_Onassis]

Numbers are really not important to the argument.

Owning a gun will rarely protect anyone from getting killed. They are more likely to get killed with their own gun, or have some member of their family shoot them or some other member than to stop a home invader.

The Founding Fathers were referring to the right to own MUSKETS, not automatic weapons.  If everyone had a musket, the mass murders that gun nuts cause would never happen, because of the time and complications of loading a musket.

And, as you say, he is funny and makes sense, two talents that sirs and his ilk will never master.

[sirs]

Numbers are really not important to the argument.

LOL...that's like saying facts don't really matter.  What matters is we need to make decisions based on emotion, and what might happen with a gun  (of course ignoring the mountain of facts and examples of a gun actually, not imagining, but actually being used to save lives from getting killed)

For those who have used it to defend theirs or someone else's life, would scowl at your inferrence that it couldn't happen.  It's better to have one and never have to use it, than to need one, but not have one.  The fact that there are so many responsible gun owners, and an ever growing increase in firearms sold, YET NO SUCH increase in violent or even accidental crime.  Quite the opposite in fact, (except of course in those locations where guns are far more restricted in ownership by law abiding citizens), which again is why you and your comedian friend here are so willfully ignorant on this issue.

And no, the founding fathers weren't referring specifically to muskets, otherwise they would have stated that in the Constitution.   

Perhaps the most glaring point of yours and his ignorance is the notion that criminals will all of a sudden start obeying greater and greater restrictive gun laws.  Make it harder for them to own, make it harder for them to reload, make it harder for them to use....yea, that's it.  When in reality, criminals BY THEIR VERY LABEL, could care less about any existing or proposed new gun laws.  They'll still get their fully automatic weapons and concealed pistols either by theft, or black market, still kill with it.  All the while the responsible gun owner is screwed trying to defend himself/herself, and their loved ones, with their legislated single shot rifle......all because idiots like this comedian can excel in comedy but be so severely lacking in any common sense

[Xavier_Onassis]

He is vastly more logical than you will ever be.

Funnier, too.

There are deceased morticians funnier than you.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Numbers are unimportant for many of his statements. Statistics are not required to disprove the statement that a gun in a safe is not going to be of much use against a home invasion.  All the firearms available to the public when the Bill of Rights were written were muskets and pistols that at most shot two bullets. It is totally obvious that Monroe was  not imagining AK-47's or pistols with ten or fifteen bullets. 

It is also true that while perhaps a bad government might be removed with muskets (though there is no historical evidence that this has ever happened), it is most certainly true that the puny weapons prized by the NRA and its goofy members would be useless against the riot control and military weapons and drones that the government now has.

[Plane]

  Context is important!

   It is true that when the Second amendment was adopted the public had nothing available but muzzleloaders.

    Also true that the government had nothing available but muzzleloaders.

     For small arms the public was just as well armed as the army , there was even a certain number of cannon in private hands.

     Early attempts to disarm Americans included that the British confiscated hundreds of weapons from Boston, infuriating them.

    Decades later there was an attempt by the Mexican government to disarm Texans , infuriating them.

     Did you note the joke that Mr. Jeffries made about the Australian attitude vs the American attitude?

       After the Port Arthur Massacre the government of Australia spoke to the Australians as a strict parent speaks to a misbehaving child, Australians promptly fell in line and allowed billions in property to be confiscated.
        Then when the US has a serious massacre , the US government timidly proposes slightly increasing the restrictions and the American Public replies in the tones of a parent to a misbehaving child, the US government meekly falls in line.

     This is the more desirable situation, the government should respect the people, and to insure this, considerable power should reside with the people.   

[Xavier_Onassis]

Not, however, the power to go ape and massacre dozens of school children.

[Plane]

  Perhaps no one should have the power to kill a child.

When the government has not got this much power , it would be safe for the people to have less power.

[sirs]

He is vastly more logical than you will ever be.

Funnier, too.

There are deceased morticians funnier than you.

I'm not trying to be funny, which I guess is a good thing, since you don't find me funny.  Glad we got that cleared up.  I'll await for you to try and refute the logic placed before you and the comedian.  Good luck with that

[sirs]

Not, however, the power to go ape and massacre dozens of school children.

And who the hell supports that??  Again, your trying to use fringe acts as somehow common place. 

[Xavier_Onassis]

Lunatics massacring groups of people for no good reason happens several times per year in this country. We seem to have more of these massacres than anyone else. And the preferred method nearly always involves GUNS.

 

[Plane]

Lunatics massacring groups of people for no good reason happens several times per year in this country. We seem to have more of these massacres than anyone else.

  Really?

  While the murder rate falls here, year by year?

    If we had enacted strict gun control the rate of improvement would be credited to gun control, don't tell me it would not.

     But since the improvement coincides with defeats of gun control , can we not make the coincidence seem causal?

      Australia is seeing about the same improvement in crime rates as we are , but there it looks like the result of gun control, try to tell them different, the evidence is an illusion, they are a much smaller population, with a lot fewer Urban areas.

        The same rate of improvement looks more dramatic on the smaller stage.

[sirs]

Lunatics massacring groups of people for no good reason happens several times per year in this country.

And millions of people are saved from potential loss of life, with the use of a gun.....exponentially more than those massacred

We seem to have more of these massacres than anyone else. And the preferred method nearly always involves GUNS.

And thankfully, exponentially more lives are SAVED with that same GUN, than those taken in those infrequent lunatic led massacres.  That's the brilliant ignorance that you and your comedian friend seem to share

[Xavier_Onassis]

The murder rate is not the same thing as the asshole gun nut goes ape and massacres a bunch of people rate.

That particular rate has gone up in recent years, because there are more gun nut assholes with more dangerous guns.

[sirs]

People being killed vs those saved by the use of a IS the point being made here. 

And no, not even the rate of massacres have been going up.  That's merely your biased perception...minus the actual facts to the contrary.  I recall very clearly your proclamation a couple of years ago, that these massacres were going to be happening practically every other month.  You're perfecting the art of being wrong