By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
dirtylemons on 15 February 2018
Edit Thread
Bajablo said:
dirtylemons said:

The firearm statistics are from gunpolicy.org and the homicide rates are according to the United Nations.
As I mentioned in another post, the U.S. has more guns than it does cars, yet more people die in automobile-related incidents than firearm-related ones, more people use guns for self-defense than to commit murder and the most liberal estimates I've seen of how many legally acquired firearms are used to commit murder weren't much more than ten percent. All of the above suggests to me that simply tightening the existing regulations (at the very least) will not lead to a dramatic drop in violence, and could even potentially lead to the opposite.

Edit: f*ck it.. lets link the whole thing

A lot of people bring up Australia's gun ban as an example of this implementation working, yet ignore the fact that crime rates actually spiked immediately after the ban, and only dropped significantly almost a decade later. That's still a good thing, and I get that Jeffries is a comedian, but I also think it's an oversight.

Sorry, I've seen this bit before, and it's a bit difficult to deconstruct because I know Jeffries is a comedian, so I want to give him the benefit of the doubt that he's intentionally being simplistic in his arguments. The notion that the only argument for owning a gun is, "Fuck off, I like guns." sounds funny and may even ring true. But as I've brought up before, more people in the U.S. protect themselves with guns than commit murder with guns. So clearly this is not the case. Ironically, Jeffries says this right after claiming he is "not for(...)bullshit arguments.", which I would say his claim is.

He goes after the term 'assault rifles', but the name doesn't change the function.
He correctly points out that people are more likely to use guns on themselves than on others, but of course less than one percent of the guns in the U.S. will be used for any illicit purpose, unlike what Jeffries makes it sound like.
He mocks gun enthusiasts for their hobby, but this isn't a point for or against gun ownership, it's just a jab.
He mocks gun owners for locking their guns up and claiming to be responsible for this, but then claims a locked-away gun would do no good. Again ignoring the dozens of thousands who do just this.
Yet again, Jeffries mocks the idea of armed teachers and school security guards stopping a potential mass shooting, ignoring that this has already happened.
He then spends a minute going after a caricature he just made up of people who disagree with him. Also pulling out the nonsense idea that people native to a land are not actually native unless their earliest ancestors were also from the same land.
I actually don't disagree with what he says about the U.S. Constitution and the Second Amendment. I'm not a constitutionalist.
A gross oversimplification of the Civil War.
I disagree with his comparison of drug use and speeding. People should have the right to take all the drugs they want, because they're only directly affecting themselves. But speeding is something that clearly endangers others.

"This is a comedy show and it's not to be taken seriously."