7 Deceptive Claims Jimmy Kimmel Made About Guns in One Monologue

Is your opinion based on our success fighting enemies hiding among friendlies in the middle east? It appears that the enemies are able to turn a peaceful neighborhood into a fortress guarded by human shields allowing them to carry out more effective attacks. Is it because they asked nicely or did they have guns?

Please share your superior knowledge of guerrilla warfare with the ignorant and tell us how they would accomplish this without guns.

 

Too ignorant- that is laughable.

Technology has zero to do with it. Do you think the military is going to use all it's various technology against the American people? Who makes up the military? The very fact that there are tens of millions if not more firearm owners owning 100's of millions of firearms is the deterrent against the tyranny that the founders feared when they included the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of rights.

 

Your rationalization is now that I don't need an AR-15 chambered in 5.56 Nato because an argument can be safely made that the military doesn't need select fire capability to "lay down suppressive fire?" This is getting good.

To diagram your argument's premises:

1. You know what I need better than I know what I need.
A. You know better than I do what's going to happen to me in the future.
I) I will not need to defend myself against large numbers of people.
II) The best way to defend against large numbers of people is to lay down suppressive fire.
III)The purpose of an AR-15 chambered in 5.56 is to "lay down suppressive fire"
IV) The military doesn't need anything more than the "semi" setting on their M-16. (not sure what this has to do with what I need, but it's part of your argument somehow so I put it here)

B. You know better than I do what I think.
I) You know I think I need 30 round semi auto rifle for self defense.
II)You know I think a full squad of people is going to attack me.


So now that we have that layed out I'll rebut.

You have no idea what will happen to me in the future. I don't know either. "laying down suppressive fire" is not the only way to defend against large numbers of people, nor is it the only way to use an AR-15 model rifle. It's not even a particularly effective way to use an AR-15. Regardless of whether or not the military does use it for that purpose, it's not the primary purpose of the weapon. The guys on the ground would much rather see a 40 mm circling over head, and big blasts of HE going off in the vicinity of the enemy. 5.56 making little tufts of dust pop up just doesn't have the same effect.

Now you claim to know I think that I need a 30 round semi automatic rifle to defend against large numbers of people attacking me. I'm not sure why you think you know that, but I'm here to declare myself the authority on matters regarding what I think. You're quite wrong. That's not why I would own an AR-15 rifle.

Maybe I own a semi automatic rifle because a follow up shot is easily accomplished with one hand. Having only one hand, keeping the target in my sight picture and cycling a bolt is impossible. Maybe I own a semi automatic rifle because I'm in a wheel chair, and cannot effectively flee from a single attacker, let alone multiple. Maybe I own a semi automatic rifle because I'm female, and I can't lift, or manage the recoil of a shotgun. Maybe I own a semi automatic rifle because it's a platform I've trained with, and am very familiar with. Maybe I own a semi automatic rifle because it's chambered in a very popular round that is abundant and inexpensive to acquire. Maybe I own a semi automatic rifle because I live and work on a farm rife with vermin that eat my crops, and rather than spray with chemicals it's better for the food to shoot the vermin.

All of these maybes. But that was exactly my point about the file you don't have on me. You don't know a thing about me. Without that data, you have no clue what I need. Stop pretending you do.

 

As I said in my post, name a news source you won't cry bias about and I'll explain.

 

Do you think efforts to prevent gun violence would be more or less effective with the force of the government behind them?

 

There are many things that can be done to reduce violence. The first thing is to stop excluding violence when no gun is involved. All violence needs to be addressed and I believe that progress can be made if we work together. I would start at the preschool level and make learning how to process emotions as important as reading, writing, and math. As they age, it will become apparent which children are having trouble and it can be addressed long before they become a danger to others.

Unfortunately, we are moving in the opposite direction. Rather than teach children how to process negative emotions, we shield them from it. Once they reach adulthood, we can only medicate them and hope for the best.

 

Sorry, but I don't know you. There is no track record on your part to rely on. I showed how the NRA has long promoted gun safety. They are not the problem.

 

I just watched the Las Vegas Fire and police department go over with the press how well they do on this. Preventing gun violence is clearly desirable, but until you chain a shooter to a cop, the shooter will shoot people. Guns are not the problem. Shooters are the problem.

 

Duh... how profound.

 

Hey, keep trying. You may also say something profound.

 

That doesn't answer my question. Your idea may or may not work. Regardless, do you think any plan to stop violence would be more or less effective with the force of government behind it?

I would also be interested to see what evidence you have, other than anecdotes, that we are trying to shield kids from negative emotions as an alternative to helping them process those emotions.

 

If the government could reduce the number of "shooters" who get their hands on guns in the first place, while still allowing responsible potential gun owners to buy weapons, would that be something you'd support?

 

I repeat: Offering training doesn't change the fact that they actively work to undermine efforts to understand gun violence. As I said originally, name a news source you consider to be reputable, and I'll provide the links to explain that charge.

 

Except for all the really serious mass shootings.

 

You mean when government used it for political purposes?

 

And if they had shotguns or pistols, they would have been totally defenseless?

 

OK, supply a link that proves .... and I sincerely mean the word proves ... the NRA fights efforts to understand gun violence.

By the way, what the heck is gun violence? People have died annually due to airplane crashes. Is that violence? Perhaps 40,000 per year die due to auto crashes. Is that what you mean by violence? That is very violent for sure.

 

May I suggest to all on the left one simple fact.

We who defend ourselves, do not wish for you to determine for us, what weapon we defend our self with. We have saved you time and effort to defend us, you have done a lousy job at defending us, and so do not order us around as to guns we will use. Thanks a lot.

 

it is not my mission nor desire to defend killers of humans. That is a major if on your hands. So what idea do you have for us to look at?

Somebody pointed out that this record killer, passed 39 checks of his background and fitness to fire weapons.

 

Easily solved with a handgun.

Easily solved with a handgun.

Easily solved with a handgun.

Irrelevant.

Irrelevant

And you need a 30 round detachable magazine to shoot vermin? A fixed internal magazine would make that job impossible?

 

Yeah, I got Kimmel down for the Idiot Celeb of the Week.


http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/idiot-celebrity-of-the-week.515758/

 

So then we don't even need to worry about it and the entire "defend myself from the evul gobbermunt" argument is just that much dumber.

 

You think an evil dictatorship that you need your AR-15 to fight and take down is going to have anything like the ROE that we do in the Middle East? You think such an evil government would give a damn about human shields?

 

Frankly, given the active and failed government force to stop auto accidents, I tend to doubt they can keep us safe from armed killers either.

We lose hundreds of thousands to heart attacks and cancer plus other diseases. This is despite Government active force supposed to handle it. I have little faith in the Democrats notion of Government to be plainly honest with you.

 

And then you snap like in LV, you can murder that many more people! Yay for you!