Jim Jefferies Stand Up Comedian On Gun Control

[video=youtube;EBpuLlw4Xjs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBpuLlw4Xjs[/video]

Some interesting points from Australian stand-up comedian Jim Jefferies on Americans and their precious guns.

What say you Americans?

 

All stuff that has been soundly refuted, funny though that an Australian comedian would be a Canadians source of information about "precious guns" in America. Didn't start out prejudiced none did you?

Try an unemotional conversation, those tend to make his comments less humorous!

 

Hey, don't shoot the messenger (see what I did there?) I'm just supplying you with a video that criticizes your view on gun control, if all the points have been refuted than prove it, these are not my points nor did I claim to make them, I'm just calling out Americans too see what their take on it is. Before you call me out on anything, I have taken both my firearm safety course and my canada hunter safety course, I have been on 100+ hunts since the age of 12 years old in Canada and I own several firearms and bows. So let's get one thing straight I know what I am talking about your opinion is already more biased then mine because you ARE an American and you judging by your statement above you ARE pro-gun. My emotions are completely in check and that's always the pro-gun American's go too first statement haha emotions.. so predictable..

 

Your quote included comments from you about Americans precious guns, you posted a video that is obviously from a guy who doesn't like guns and it is full of factual inaccuracies that are antigun and you are just the messenger? Hmmm this doesn't add up. As to refuting...easy peasy, lets start at the beginning and go from there...if you need more, just ask. Your comedian states that Port Arthur is the biggest massacre on earth which is incorrect but designed to make the antigun rhetoric seem factual, and then goes on to comment on the bulls#@# argument and lies about the reason we own guns is because we like guns, which leads to the comments about protection rifles. Rifles killed fewer people than hammers, more emotional baggage from you "assault weapons" anti-gunners. Handguns are the chosen weapon for self defense and your comedian whom you choose to highlight as an example of some prime example of what Americans feel about their guns is another shining example of people who just don't get it.
Please don't come here preaching your pro gun attitude by providing examples of what you personally have for weapons all the while providing video clips of anti-gun emotional baggage meant to criticize Americans beliefs and attitudes about guns. We know why we own them, we know why we defend our rights to own them. Your video is inaccurate!

 

It wasn't supposed to be accurate it is a comedy

But he did have some good points and just about summed up the Aussie attitude

 

As an Australian (of which will make my opinion invalid, as I'm a foreigner ) , a lover of Jim Jefferies and an ardent supporter of gun control and regulation, I felt the need to cut in. SmallTownGuy, sorry- the Port Arthur massacre was only the 4th largest Gun massacre (http://listverse.com/2011/10/22/top-10-deadliest-rampage-killers/) but was larger than any in U.S history. And sorry to say, but Jefferies makes some very good points, of which I'll add my own. Firstly, he mentions the very idea that spawned the "need" for a 2nd Amendment; was indeed, and I paraphrase: "To form a well regulated militia, capable of defending against a corrupt government". And yes, just as he mentioned, that was all very well until the government took control of larger and more advanced weapons than your beloved pea-shooter. And I'm sure the moment the laser-guided cruise missiles hit your houses and tanks roam the streets you'll be very well defended with your rifles. "Guns kill less people than hammers"? I'd like to see a source for that statistic, and if the hammer is such an effective weapon, why not utilize it? Home defense is an idiotic reason as well, as a negligible amount of home-invasions are successfully repelled with pistols, or any other small-arm. Hunting? If that's your answer as to possessing firearms (a logical answer is missing from your posts) then almost nobody would have the slightest problem with you owning your bolt-action rifles if you properly secure them. No, the argument of late that you seem so upset about is ownership of assault weapons, which your forefathers would have had the slightest clue would ever come into existence, and they did not, while the 2nd amendment stood for 200 odd years. Handguns, in the U.S, are primarily used for suicide, not home defense, and the suicide rate stands at almost double that of homicide; it seems that apart from firing off a few rounds at a gun range, the handgun is primarily a tool for offing yourself; and by its design, it's not hard to see why. "Where guns are prevalent, there are significantly more homicides, particularly gun homicides" (http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-deaths-and-injuries-statistics/). In any other CIvilized society, the thought of you legally being able to carry a loaded firearm for self defense, gives the impression that all those who take advantage of that law are paranoid lunatics, thinking their next gunfight is around the corner - which, oddly, I haven't heard of any great Texas-style shootouts recently... No, all that the current U.S government is trying to reform, as to the 2nd Amendment, is the purchase of assault weapons - the hint is right there in the name, they are specifically designed modern weapons, intended for the most effective killing capacity of specifically humans, possible. And you won't give that up? To save lives, you wont give up your little toy that you like tinkering around with so much? Can I ask you to directly state why "Americans know why they own them, and they know why they defend their rights to"? It's a very hazy topic for me. And I apologize (no, I really do) for the very passive aggressive tone to this post, I just don't see any other way to hammer the point through.

 

One thing to remember for those who will point at Australian crime statistics and say that crime is up so less guns = more crime. There are more legally owned guns in Australia today than ever. Gun ownership has gone up since the so called ban. The so called ban only ever banned a fraction of legally owned guns. Gun owners just replaced them.

 

Ignorant twit.

 

Your concept of what is reality here in the US is pretty absurd.

Your knowledge of Amercia, its firearms, laws and "what the Founding Fathers really wanted..." is so laughable, you should be doing the comedy routine.

To begin with, please provide one statement or even one law by the American Founders that demanded any form of gun control. Also, you left out the part in the 2nd Amendment that stated that the right "Shall not be infringed." How is the word "infringed" any different now than it was in 1787? Many of the same Founders wrote the Militia Act of 1792 that insisted some soldiers use handguns. In fact any citizen could have their own cannons at home---far more powerful than any .50 caliber rifle. As there was NO gun control implied anywhere, the silly argument that only males between 17 and 45 in the militia were allowed guns, is so patently false because the Founders would have been grabbing the guns from women, children. Many of the Founders were over 45 years old, so they should have been turning in their personal firearms to government buyback programs. As if THAT happened.
http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

Now the false prophets of gun control, like yourself, usually are forced to mix in suicide data to demonize guns---as if the guns themselves have some sort of magical, innate power to force the people who are near them to do evil, and kill themselves. Sucides are most driven by demographics, climate and culture---not gun availability. In fact, the country that has twice the suicide rate of the US is Japan, that is effectively gun-free.
http://thediplomat.com/2013/01/searching-for-answers-japans-suicide-epidemic/

In America, none of the top 20 professions with the most suicides invovle handing guns. Phyisicans and Marine Biologists are at the top of the list.
http://www.businessinsider.com/most-suicidal-occupations-2011-10?op=1

Now coming to your most amazing statement that, "Handguns, the US, are primarily used for suicide..." is such rubbish. As you belive all guns are evil, then you should look at all guns in the US--not just the ones laying around someone's house. If guns are so dangerous, particuarly handguns, then take all 900,000 handguns(a primary use BTW) used by sworn police officers in the US. One would expect their profession to be at the very top of the suicide list.

The Law Center site you quote is a pathetic source of meaningful data on gun "deaths." Anti-gun rights people ALWAYS use State or Nationwide data to confuse the real cause of gun homocides---which is gang violence. Between 50 to 80 percent of all homocides are gang related. The risk of being a crime or murder victim will be exponetially higher in urban ganglands. In Chicago alone there were over 500 murders in one year in a city of 3 million that banned handguns. In North Dakota, which has about the highest percentage of guns per household, there were only 6 murders in the whole state of some 720,000 souls. Meaning there is over 100 times greater risk of being killed in Chicago.

Please define exactly what an "assault weapon" is.

 

Nothing constructive to ad to the conversation I see.. I've become accustomed to replies like this when conversing with this crowd. And I'm sure you'll be back to express more of your mindless frustration after I prove to you why your wrong.

 

The first if not the most ridiculous point I can make as a Canadian about gun control is the fact that I am 400% more likely to get shot when I cross the border into America. In fact due to that fact that we do still have guns and only restrictions on certain types of guns you could say as Canadian we are more responsible.The US homicide rate per 100,000 committed without guns is only slightly higher, 1.4 times, than the Canadian rate. But the rate of homicide with guns in the U.S. is 6 times higher than that seen in Canada and the rate of homicide with handguns in America is 2.41 per 100,000, which is 7 times higher than the Canadian rate 0.33 per 100,000. The pattern with robbery looks the same. In America, there were more than 408,000 robberies in 2009, 36 percent of them with firearms, with a rate of 55 per 100,000. In Canada there were 32,200 robberies, 14 percent of them with firearms, for a rate of 13 per 100,000.
Isn't that ridiculous? How does that happen? How can you be so irresponsible as a nation? Maybe you guys should take notes. Maybe it's because we don't have a legal right to own firearms and must go through more extensive processes. Do you people even know how to use a gun? What do they teach you in firearms safety courses? You have the most guns and the most gun deaths, when will that clue in?
Join the rest of the civilized world and get a clue.

 

I was reading that guns cause 1% of deaths in the US. That seems like a lot.

 

OK, so two points.

First, the guy says a rifle isn't for protection because it's called an assault rifle not a protection rifle. Talk about a game of semantics! As if a word used to demonize certain rifles limits their capabilities. Reminds me of the movie Anchorman where the sports guy says "It's anchorMAN, not anchorLADY...and that is a scientific fact!"

Second, he admits that the real reason for the 2nd Amendment (resistance to tyranny) is a good one, but then says that guns are ineffective against drones, so let's just flush our protection against runaway government down the toilet. What he fails to mention is that, contrary to his crap about muskets, the 2nd Amendment says ARMS, not guns. Muskets were fine when the people who would seek to oppress us were using muskets. But if the people we must defend ourselves against get better ARMS, so must we, to maintain the balance of power. Military weaponry is a must to fight against military forces. It was in the 1700s, and it is still so today. So if you can't hit a drone with a bullet, figure out something else. Get your own drone. Figure out how to hack control of theirs. Get some anti-air capability. Go underground. Do something other than give up and let Orwell's dystopia happen on your watch.

 

He makes one good point and it's right in the beginning. The ONLY defensible reason for owning a gun is because you like them. None other really makes any sense, (and how stupid they are is really the main joke) and you really shouldn't need any either.

 

so, you would impose your own beliefs on an entire nation.................how generous of you........ it made killing the Jews so much easier by a tyrant that insisted he was no tyrant........
"tell the Jews they don't need guns"....A. Hitler

 

Brilliant video!!!! Thank you.

 

Arguing with gun nuts is fruitless and a waste of time.

 

Thank you.

 

What a dumb statement. A gun is a tool, also a weapon. Its function is to fire a projectile down a barrel. The same function when a bow fires an arrow. The same function when an arm throws a spear, a javalin, bowling ball or dart. Obviously all the sports and pastimes that use them exsist only because because there is a fetish for the gun, the bow, the spear, bowling ball,dart---or maybe an intense love of one's own hands and arms that deploy them.

Do the hunters in Alaska and Siberia need guns and snowmobiles because they love them or need them to survive?

I think your hatred and intolerance of guns must also be addressed. Say you were you caught in a riot and an armed band of a dozen thugs is kicking in your door. Would you be too prejudiced to pick up a firearm inside the house and defend it? Would you allow yourself and maybe (I mean maybe) some of your loved-ones to be beated, raped or killed?

The most basic question might be: do you think individual citizens have the right to self preservation in the 21st Century---to defend themselves?

 

I'd be much obliged if you'd source that quote

 

What a dumb paragraph. "A gun is a tool. It's function is to fire a projectile down a barrel." - That, nobody is arguing with you about; but as a point, the best "tool" for killing another person just so happens to be a gun... that's probably why they made an entire Forum-Topic about it, surprisingly there's no "Javelin Control" Forum-Topic. "Do the hunters in a Alaska and Siberia need guns because the love them or the need to survive" Yeah... because when you're in the arctic wilderness and you need to eat, hunting for you meal makes sense, not so much when you live in the Continental United States where 90% of the population live within 15 minutes of a Walmart, and guns are mostly used for safekeeping by moronic and paranoid Americans and shooting at paper targets. And I'm pretty sure the "Siberian Hunter's" aren't equipped with Assault Weapons when they hunt. And to answer the other guy's question "What is an assault weapon" -
"An assault rifle is a selective fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine." I also have a problem with Sub - Machine guns, if you need a definition for what that is I'll gladly supply it. Wow. What a paranoid statement. "Say you were you caught in a riot and an armed band of a dozen thugs is kicking in your door. Would you be too prejudiced to pick up a firearm inside the house and defend it? Would you allow yourself and maybe (I mean maybe) some of your loved-ones to be beated, raped or killed?" Wait, firstly- why is there a riot? And where did these armed thugs come from? Ahhh, I see; your deep dark paranoid imagination. I don't think that's ever happened in Australia in this Century to be honest, of course I wouldn't know about American because I'm just a foolish foreigner who's not-so-much as seen a second of American news. We haven't had a single armed riot in this country for quite some time, and I think your last major one would have been in 1992, where... 53 people died. Wow. Listen, criminal use guns to kill, wait for it, other criminals. They don't go around harassing and killing the commoners. And yes, citizens do deserve the right to defend themselves, but everybody else is getting on just fine with actually manning up and using their fists everywhere else. There's no need for every house on your suburban block to become a fortress.

 

What? Were are you getting your drones mate? I want one! No seriously, let me in on your drone source, and while you're at it, I can shell out a few K's for some AA Missiles as well. Because Jesus Christ man, 1984 was thirty years ago and they haven't done anything!

 

Sorry if freedom costs money. Get creative.

Just because the book was called 1984 doesn't mean that the idea becomes invalid after that year. And although they are behind schedule, they most definitely haven't "done nothing". Remember the drones in 1984? Remember the total surveillance state, just like the NSA has turned America, nay, the world, into? We have been moving toward an Orwellian world for a long time. They are just now getting arrogant enough that they have begun pulling back the curtain to let people know just how bad it's gotten.

 

Well, at least you can stand up for your beliefs and try to rationalize them.

There are many supposed civilized areas that outlaw the carry of long knives, swords, spears and ectera type weapons for the common man. New York City, the UK, Japan and so many others allow only the power elite to be armed. If you are poor, frail person then you are on your own in these places.

I fail to be inspired by thinking that it is "moronic" to have a gun to shoot at paper targets. Archery must be an equally moronic endevor. Should spears and javalins only be used to hunt with? I personally think it wise to sight in a practice with one's weapon before trying to use it on live game and especially human targets. I do remember shooting at paper and plastic targets back back during my US Army training. Perhaps you envision handing a bolt-action rifle to untrained concripts as a better idea. AR rifles are as common for hunting, target shooting and law enforcement in Alaska as they are here in the lower 48 states. I do have an AR rifle, but it isn't a real assault rifle because it is only semi-auto. It is a superior gun in almost every respect to typical bolt and lever-action rifles. Just as modern golfes and tennis players today don't use obsolete wooden clubs and racquets---I like the modern tech. If you and yours down under want to use older guns---then that's YOUR thing.

Speaking of poor ideas, here you are Down Under demanding what gun laws we in America should abide by---having hardly the fanitest clue as to the real state of affairs that exist here.

I mentioned a worse case senario as in a violent riot to see if a person with a gun phobia could use one if the life of his family depended on it. Just because there have been no riots in AUS/NZ does not mean they don't happen here---or have the potential to happen. There was a riot near St. Louis a few weeks ago. There was a major riot in Los Angeles in the 90's, and one back in 1965 you speak of---that led my parents to flee the city shortly afterwards. America does look and act much like most of Australia---however, we have scores of very dangerous areas that look more like 3rd world ****holes. Just the other day a criminal in the neighboring urban wasteland across the river shot a killed a young girl after kidnapping and raping her. Criminals may kill other criminals MOST of the time, but certainly not all the time. Crime worldwide is based #1 on demographics/culture. Period. Taking the urban city across the river again, there have been 1 or 2 murders a years in my county consistanly over the last 10 years. In the city nearby, with a radically different ethnic component & culture, there have been consistantly 30 murders a year, and in the past up to a 100 a year. The population being about even.

How can that be? The laws are the same. In fact more people have legally owned firearms in our county than in the city. Why is crime 30 times higher? I don't usually carry a gun on my person---unless I'm going to dangerous areas, like the nearby city. I will then only carry a small pocket pistol. You may think it foolish behavior---but I think it reasonable given the scientific risks. Fists are not enough.

I'll end by saying I've got about a dozen guns that have many uses. Unlike with other other sports and pastimes, having guns allows me to hunt, to shoot for pleasure and competion---and have the best means for defense.

 

Mate, I've been to America, in fact, the first soil I stepped on in America was in the city of Detroit, although we've already forgotten Jim Jefferies referencing the the video how Americans hate being told what to do by foreigners, my wife's a native Michiganian, living in an area that wasn't exactly known for its family-friendly community, and she didn't have a gun in her house (nor did any of her family's friends) because she knew that if somebody was going to break into her house, 99 times out of a 100 (not that it ever did happen) they wouldn't be there to kill and rape everybody, they'd be there to thieve things, which if that situation were to happen in your house, you'd gun them down with your AR-15 or Handgun (better check the over-penetration rates on your calibers by the way). But of course my opinion matters nil because I'm a foreigner.
In a city nearby "ethnic component & culture" (Non-white and lower-class you mean - if I'm wrong then name the city, of course, that would challenge you, being middle-class and white - if I'm wrong, state your race and income bracket - bet I'm right) there are 30 murders a year. In my entire COUNTRY there are 200... and most are criminal and drug related... wow, taking away our guns really turned the country into a bloodbath, hey.
And yes, the was a riot in St. Louis - strangely resultant of a shooting... (a big smile just crept onto my face), and no fatalities or raping occurred.
And yeah, no problem with liking more technologically advanced things - golfers hit further, tennis players return faster, and... guns are more deadly, yeah, no problem with golfers rampaging in schools with their technologically advanced golf-clubs, more of a problem with a semi-automatic AR-Variant rifle firing 5.56mm Fragmenting rounds into children, vs say, a .308 bolt action rifle? Can we agree on one thing - a background check and mandatory waiting period for all weapons? How about that?