United States Gun Control (Jim Jeffries)
A comedian pointing out some of the stupidity behind (some/most) American's not wanting to give up their guns.
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
A comedian pointing out some of the stupidity behind (some/most) American's not wanting to give up their guns.
Comments
Pretty amusing presentation, but he really didn't actually point out the "stupidity" in the other side of the spectrum at all. He straight up said not to take it too seriously.. because obviously it wouldn't have been funny for him to actually be fair to the other side of the argument and present a reasonable analysis of it and then compare it to his own opinion.
Click here
u should watch all 3 parts
Similar to your original video, this video has a very obvious agenda. The homicide rate in Australia actually hasn't even for sure been affected by the gun control laws put in place in 1996.
Following the ban, homicides were actually at a slight increase in the years 1999, 2000, and 2002. If these gun bans were actually meaningful, why is it that there was an increase in homicides for those years? Why is it that the homicide rate hasn't really meaningfully gone down?
The point is that there is an irregular amount of MASS shootings in the United States. It's sort of an epidemic if you ask me. The point that I'm trying to make and I never said it "decreased" the homicide rate, I said there hasn't been a MASS SHOOTING since they implemented gun control in Australia after the Port Arthur massacre.
The point of the whole thing is that some Americans believe that gun control doesn't work and never will. The fact is that if America implemented gun control there would be considerably less mass shootings in the United States.
The homicide rate actually has nothing to do with "gun violence". Homicide is murder by any means, not just by shooting someone with a gun.
Edit: Are you part of the 10% that the comedian was talking about?
in 2003, less then 16% of the homicides had a firearm involved.....
In 1992, 22% of suicides had guns involved. In 2005, only 7% of suicides had guns involved. These are the sort of changes that happen when gun control is implemented
But these gun control laws shouldn't only be attached to mass shootings, correct? If the general danger of death by crime is not influenced in a positive way, then why should you make it more difficult for the general population to defend themselves/ others? You can't just isolate these mass shooting crimes away from the rest of the homicide data and use that as justification for the overall big picture. That doesn't make any sense. At the very least, I believe people should be able to conceal carry (they're not able to in Australia).
Australia didn't straight up ban the use of all firearms, they only banned certain types and enacted more regulations. Nothing dramatically changed in regards to how difficult it would be for someone to kill themselves with a firearm if they wanted to, with the exception of it being a little more of a process to obtain a firearm. If anything, the increased background checks (which I am all for) would have more of something to do with this rather than the types of guns available.
I don't see how that supports your stance. It simply shows that people still find other means to kill people, and these people are even less able to effectively defend themselves. Also, the point your trying to push here doesn't mean anything anyway as you're not comparing to a percentage of deaths by firearm before the ban was put in place.
Also, you may just want to edit your posts in the future, as it's a little more organized and we wouldn't have to have multiple different conversations going on in different areas of the thread that have to do with the same general thing.
A homicide does not automatically mean it's gun related. A mass shooting however does. What you basically are saying is that if the homicide rate doesn't go down then there is no point in trying to lower the amount of mass shootings. The number of gun-related homicides would go down as a result of gun control.
Obviously.
The whole point of trying to lower gun-related homicides is to lower the number of homicides. How do you see less gun related homicides as a victory if the actual total rate of homicides more or less go unchanged? What about the fact that there were actually slightly less homicides before the gun control laws in Australia were enacted compared to the number of homicides in the seven or so years following the new laws?
If the 1996 gun ban hasn't meaningfully impacted deaths due to violent crime, then why would you go out of your way to make it more difficult for people to be safe/ protect themselves?
Earlier you had posted that in 2003 less than 16% of homicides in Australia involved a firearm. For whatever reason I can't seem to find these percentages for other years, so it's kind of difficult for me to compare. Where did you get your data from? I don't think it necessarily even matters for reasons I have already explained, but I'm curious.
Click here
I sort of wonder how often these banned guns were actually being used in firearm related homicides prior to being banned. If they weren't often the type of weapon involved, then the decrease in homicides by firearm may not even be completely related. In the case of America, the vast majority of firearm related homicides don't involve assault type weapons.
I understand what you're saying in regards to specifically trying to stop mass shootings, but it comes down to whether or not sacrificing self defense measures is really the way to go about it. If the overall homicide numbers are not affected by removing particular weapons, then it's arguably not worth hindering someone's capacity to protect themselves. I have been on both sides of the fence in regards to this issue and I would say that my opinion is still fairly fluid, but at the very least, I think it's understandable that some people against aspects of gun control would want to go a different route in stopping these mass shootings.
You can't send young adults to fight "your" wars then expect them to come back well adjusted, and disarm. It doesn't work that way.
I'm from canada (the main reason why US gun laws boggle my mind) .....We go to war and have gun control so what exactly do you mean?
I dont know what war has to with domestic gun laws.
I respect your opinion. I'm a little iffy on the self-defense issue because guns are rarely used for self defense in the united states whether you like it or not. In 2012, for every 32 homicides (gun related) there was one justifiable homicide that was gun related.
Justifiable homicide statistics
^ Look at the last few pages
I understand that guns have saved lives but the fact remains that they take more lives then they save. The vast majority of people don't pull a gun on someone when they feel threatened.
And I respect yours as well. I agree that guns probably do take more lives than they save, though I would say that's true for weapons in general. Aside from reported statistics, I think it could be argued that just having a gun on hand could be enough to deter potential criminals from robbery, assault, murder, things of that nature.
I actually don't even personally own a gun, simply because I don't feel like I need one. I live in a small town where violent crime is quite rare, and gun crime is completely unheard of. It's really not too bad in the surrounding area, either. That said, in other areas, I can understand why someone would want to be able to protect themselves, not just against gun related crime, but other sorts of violence as well. I can understand why they would want to have the upper hand in regards to protecting their homes from potential criminals. The majority of people won't ever actually need to use their weapons in self defense, but I don't think that should mean that they should have less ability to keep themselves/ their homes protected in times of need. I mean, obviously a line needs to be drawn somewhere, but if banning certain weapons isn't changing the overall landscape of violent crime, then I'm not sure that it's really at the advantage of the public.
Anyway, just my take on the matter at this point in time. It really is sort of a difficult issue, and I really don't think the answer is an easy one. To a degree, I can see both sides of the argument.
I think that he's referring to veterans coming back from fighting (so using guns for God-knows how long) are expected to adjust to society without a hassle. He's right, you don't come back from a war without bringing some of it back.
[removed]
Post traumatic stress disorder has nothing to do with guns. I really don't get what you mean? Are you saying that when a soldier comes home he has to have a gun?
Have you watched American Sniper by chance?
Copyright Claim? Dammit Jim Jefferies, you used to be cool...
On a more serious note, I live in a country without guns... I like being able to walk around alleyways at 3am and not giving a damn about getting shot...
Word war one, world war two, Korean War, Gulf War, War in Afghanistan, etc.
The United States is not the only country in the world to go to war....
Me too
Yes, actually. And it shows what I mean. I wasn't specifically talking about owning gun, but rather the difficulties in adjusting to society after fighting in a war for so long.
Although I would like to see what percentage of U.S veterans own guns.
Canada has extremely great soldiers and has been in a lot of wars, they have done a lot.
It's been in quite a few of the wars that we Americans have been in, George. I wouldn't dismiss their wartime contributions or accomplishments so easily.
I get that. Adjusting to society after war is incredibly difficult.
American Sniper actually proves my point more then yours as the man was trying to help a fellow soldier suffering from PTSD by bringing him to a gun range and it had fatal consequences. PTSD and guns do not mix well.
I'm not really sure how we got into war because this thread had nothing to with it :P
Don't remember seeing Canadians when i was there.
instead you want to worry about being stabbed, bludgeoned, strangled, or set on fire.
Canada let's US deserters come over for a free pass. If you need to dodge the draft go there.
Whatever man. I don't have to convince you. It's called HISTORY. We were there.
Seeing as you claim to be a veteran I would of thought you'd have more respect for veterans of Canada.
WHERE were you by the way? You mention you didn't see any when you were there. But where is "there"?
so gun control breeds carelessness?
The draft hasn't existed since Vietnam. This is just you being an ignorant asshole.
You still have to worry about that too you dumb ass.
What ya mean??
My sister went to law school in Camden, New Jersey, a place with some of the strictest weapon laws in the country. Ironically, it's also a complete shithole and one of the most dangerous cities in the US. Possession of ANY weapon is a 1st degree misdemeanor AT LEAST. It's kind of fucked up that she could be attacked in the street and have no means to defend herself. No gun, no knife, no stun gun, not even pepper spray.
I'm a gun owner, I own one of those "assault weapons" that the media thinks is extra scary because it has 'gasp' a pistol grip. Dun dun DUUUN! I've only had to defend my household with it once, but it was invaluable in helping me quickly take control of the situation until the cops arrived.
I wouldn't be hysterical if the government bought back my gun, but I'd feel somewhat less safe.
EDIT : For reference this is my big, evil assault rifle (minus the red dot sight that I normally use)
It may surprise you to know that my assault weapon is the exact same model as this "small game/plinking rifle.
If it's the same gun, why should mine be illegal? Because it's scary? Politicians and journalists seem to think so.
Not even pepper spray? What's that's just ridiculous.
Yep, it's part of a law enforcement strategy.
You see, Camden has a drug / gangbanger problem. The new weapon laws are supposed to keep them in jail longer.
Let's say Joey G. is arrested for tagging a building. The cops search him and find a gun. Instead of getting probation and a fine for vandalism, Joey's charges are trumped up with concealment of a deadly weapon, and possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of the crime. Now he's looking at 3-10 years, Depending on how charitable the judge is feeling. If Joey's a felon, they can also look forward to anywhere from 1-5 years on top of that. No more gangbanging in Camden for Joey.
At least,that's how it's supposed to work. More often, cops frisk people suspected of misdemeanor drug possession, find a weapon and trump up the charges.