Jim Jefferies on Gun control

[Fresh]

WHY DO YOU THINK THEY ARE TAKING "YOUR" GUNS?

they aren't. They want it more difficult for people who shouldn't have them, to have them.
Like violent criminals and ppl with mental illness. Not law abiding citizens.
You don't have anything to worry about.
If you do...u shouldn't have a gun anyway. Because, ur either:
A- a violent criminal
Or
B- a person with mental illness.

I still haven't seen or heard ANYONE, EVER say they want to ban guns outright. Besides of course, pro gun activist guys.

Exactly. If your worried about having your guns taken away than you should have your guns taken away. If you're not worried than that's because you have no reason to be worried.

[Nohbody]

WHY DO YOU THINK THEY ARE TAKING "YOUR" GUNS?

they aren't. They want it more difficult for people who shouldn't have them, to have them.
Like violent criminals and ppl with mental illness. Not law abiding citizens.
You don't have anything to worry about.
If you do...u shouldn't have a gun anyway. Because, ur either:
A- a violent criminal
Or
B- a person with mental illness.

I still haven't seen or heard ANYONE, EVER say they want to ban guns outright. Besides of course, pro gun activist guys.

Its already illegal for felons to own guns. Criminals don't obey laws though.

In order to keep mentally ill people away from guns, you have to have treatment facilities. Instead, these people are housed in prisons and turn even more violent.

Those saying that gun owners dont have anything to worry about are obviously not gun owners, or, truly dont understand these gun grabbers agendas.

This is why im so opposed to that cunt Clinton getting into office. She and her like minded fucking idiots falsely identify semi automatic long rifles as militarized assault rifles and demonize them.

lets ignore the FACT that handguns kill more people in a day then any AR-15 in any mass shooting in history.

lets ignore the FACT that most gun related homicides occur in areas of the US that have heavily regulated gun restrictions. And again. . . most of those homicides are committed with hand guns. Not AK's and AR's

lets just go ahead and blatantly lie and make claims that gun control in other countries have reduced violent crime. When the reality is, violent crime rises or simply just stays the same.

I do not want a government that will decide what type of firearm i need or dont need based on bold faced lies, mis definitions, and utterly false statistics.

[Fresh]

Its already illegal for felons to own guns. Criminals don't obey laws though.

In order to keep mentally ill people away from guns, you have to have treatment facilities. Instead, these people are housed in prisons and turn even more violent.

Those saying that gun owners dont have anything to worry about are obviously not gun owners, or, truly dont understand these gun grabbers agendas.

This is why im so opposed to that cunt Clinton getting into office. She and her like minded fucking idiots falsely identify semi automatic long rifles as militarized assault rifles and demonize them.

lets ignore the FACT that handguns kill more people in a day then any AR-15 in any mass shooting in history.

lets ignore the FACT that most gun related homicides occur in areas of the US that have heavily regulated gun restrictions. And again. . . most of those homicides are committed with hand guns. Not AK's and AR's

lets just go ahead and blatantly lie and make claims that gun control in other countries have reduced violent crime. When the reality is, violent crime rises or simply just stays the same.

I do not want a government that will decide what type of firearm i need or dont need based on bold faced lies, mis definitions, and utterly false statistics.

but the link you dropped showed that there wasn't a rise in crime since the stricter gun laws took effect.

I'm sure there are sources that say otherwise, and I'd be skeptical of either source until I was sure that the information was verified and shown to be true beyond a doubt. However you can't claim these as facts without knowing they're facts.

[Greedy]

So are u suggesting they ban handguns?
Or what are u saying here exactly?

Do nothing?

We've had guns with pretty lax laws since the 1800's.
But after 2003 there's been a pretty significant increase in gun deaths here.
Its not irresponsible to attempt to do something about that.

And as far as regular ppl with guns stopping criminals with guns...don't be silly. That's not feasible.
Stay out of that. Because then the lines get blurred as to who is the good guys, if its a wild wild west situation and muhfukas are running around shooting at everyone. Then they WILL take YOUR guns.

[Fresh]

lol

at the risk of subjecting anyones pro-socialist views on this website, id rather not even have that conversation. were good man

I'm not necessarily pro socialist. I don't have a full understanding on the subject to have a final take on it.

My limited understanding though leads me to believe it has its ups and downs just like capitalism. I mean capitalism is a pretty good system, but it leaves a lot of control to the greedy corporations and such. It's like if the strong and the week fight over the food, the strong get the food because they're stronger and continue to get stronger but the week don't have a chance to get stronger because they can't ever get the food. I understand socialism would take away certain liberties for certain people, but if it is done right it could lead to good things. Maybe it's just a good idea in theory but impossible to implement in the real world, I dunno. But I do believe in theory it is a good idea. Like I said my understanding of it is somewhat infantile.

[Nohbody]

but the link you dropped showed that there wasn't a rise in crime since the stricter gun laws took effect.

neither did it show a reduction in crime

I'm sure there are sources that say otherwise, and I'd be skeptical of either source until I was sure that the information was verified and shown to be true beyond a doubt. However you can't claim these as facts without knowing they're facts.

there will be sources from both sides. Whats very hard to find are credible sources that show any reduction in crime after heavy gun restrictions or bans.

So are u suggesting they ban handguns?
Or what are u saying here exactly?

what i am saying is that most of the anti-gun/pro ban idiots are trying to ban guns based on how they look, capacity of magazines, and falsely identifying them as weapons designed to kill people.

once you let em take those, then the attention will be shifted to handguns, because hey. . now all these mass shootings are happening with handguns. .

then after they take those. . i guess the populous will just have to settle on hair spray and lighter to protect their homes against criminals who disobeyed the ban laws and kept their guns

Do nothing?

absolutely not. what they can do is relax the laws in regulated areas, let people own firearms because they have a right too. . . and focus on real solutions to reducing homicide without blaming it on certain types of guns

We've had guns with pretty lax laws since the 1800's.
But after 2003 there's been a pretty significant increase in gun deaths here.
Its not irresponsible to attempt to do something about that.

where is here?

And as far as regular ppl with guns stopping criminals with guns...don't be silly.

so whos going to do it? Police dont show up until AFTER a crime has been committed. So you tell me! Whos going to stop them? Laws?

Stay out of that. Because then the lines get blurred as to who is the good guys, if its a wild wild west situation and muhfukas are running around shooting at everyone. Then they WILL take YOUR guns.

again, i feel like educating the public in fire arm safety and offering offensive/defensive courses that are widely available to the public will help in this matter. Most people are just going to flee whether they have a gun on them or not. But a well trained civilian is usually pretty effective against a deranged lunatic flipping out on PCP and while wielding a knife on a public bus

I understand there is no good solution, and even people who mean well do idiotic things with guns. Reality sucks. . but i strongly feel that banning certain types of weapons, raising prices on ammunition's, or placing high taxes on weapons are not the way to go about it.

I also do not agree with any regulations that require citizens to have to register for militia purposes. Outside of personal protection, we still have the right as Americans to arm ourselves against a tyrannical government and the last thing we should give a tyrannical government is a means to know the identity and locations of gun owners. Thats strategical self sabotage

- - - Updated - - -

and for the record, i just want to say. . in any of these debates i mean no personal disrespect to anyone. I'm not trying to take it there. And if any point i do get offensive please call me out on it.

I respect everyone's rights to have and own their own beliefs, views, and ideas. And i know when those views conflict, the waters are sometimes tough to navigate without offending people.

[Greedy]

Here is USA.

But ur suggesting that the government spend money to educate ppl on guns?
That just won't happen. America will just raise taxes if they do. Just look at the "education" system currently.
USA ain't even a little bit, kinda, sorta, interested in education. At all.

U gon pay for those classes?


I agree. I don't meant to offend either. But its hard to detect tone in written words. So it may come off as me being a dick, or willfully obtuse. I'm not

[Nohbody]

Here is USA.

But ur suggesting that the government spend money to educate ppl on guns?
That just won't happen. America will just raise taxes if they do. Just look at the "education" system currently.
USA ain't even a little bit, kinda, sorta, interested in education. At all.

U gon pay for those classes?

I already do. I pay thousands in annual fees, ammunition, and tactical classes and courses. I also participate in IDPA sponsored events and competitions, and attend every local self defense, tactical and decision making instructional course i can fit in to my schedule.

However, these courses are often too costly for the average citizen to afford. The government driving up costs on ammunition and such does not make it any easier. End the war on drugs, get rid of these bloated government agencies that we don't need, take all that funding and shift it to education and increased access to facilities and financial assistance for the mentally ill and correct these issues where they start

I agree. I don't meant to offend either. But its hard to detect tone in written words. So it may come off as me being a dick, or willfully obtuse. I'm not

aye

[Greedy]

See..now we agree

[Stranger]

guns will be ineffective in the future anyway, if you believe in a future without death.

[Fresh]

guns will be ineffective in the future anyway, if you believe in a future without death.

ehh the future will probably see people living much longer but that's mostly from natural causes and diesase. A bullet to the heart is a bullet to the heart

[whoami]

lol, calling me an extreme rightest when I'm a libertarian, your projection of what you are doing on to me, and resorting to immature insults are the reasons a civilized debate cannot be had.

Still haven't answered the question: Why do you favor one group of people having access to firearms over another? Why does the government deserve unrestrained access to firearms while the citizenry must navigate through a maze of bureaucracy? There are more mentally ill people in the government than the citizenry at large, speaking specifically on the United States as I cannot attest to foreign governments but I'm sure it's not much different. The US Government kills so many people on a daily basis that gun violence by civilians pales in comparison. It's a nonissue in comparison. You are falling for the distraction. The government wants you to focus on the insignificant so they can continue their agenda. What is your intention behind supporting further gun control? If it's to safeguard people, then you are fighting the wrong fight. You should be speaking out against illegal wars and the bombing of innocent civilians to include women and children - this death toll is much more significant than victims of gun violence in the United States.

[Stranger]

ehh the future will probably see people living much longer but that's mostly from natural causes and diesase. A bullet to the heart is a bullet to the heart

you should watch the movie the veil on netflix, it will be like that, or like the show "the returned" I believe that shit can happen.

[Fresh]

lol, calling me an extreme rightest when I'm a libertarian, your projection of what you are doing on to me, and resorting to immature insults are the reasons a civilized debate cannot be had.

You comparing me to nazi's took away the chance for civil debate. But I will reply to your lies as calmy as I can.

Still haven't answered the question: Why do you favor one group of people having access to firearms over another?

Well do you know which groups I would like to not have guns? Like I said earlier (before enoch talked about kill or be killed) I said he's the type of level headed dude that should be allowed to have guns. The people that shouldn't have guns are people that are mentally unstable or have a history of violence.

Why does the government deserve unrestrained access to firearms while the citizenry must navigate through a maze of bureaucracy?

I never said they should have unrestrained access to firearms. Quote me where I said this please.

There are more mentally ill people in the government than the citizenry at large, speaking specifically on the United States as I cannot attest to foreign governments but I'm sure it's not much different.

There are many mentally ill people in the government, mostly because they have been indoctrinated with religion. Ted Cruz for example, is a religious nutcase and one of the dumbest people running for president.

The US Government kills so many people on a daily basis that gun violence by civilians pales in comparison.

This is true, but it doesn't mean that we should not do anything about other issues. I have spoke out against many instances of police brutality especially when it's cold blooded murder which there are many cases of. Where it pales in comparison is in war zones, and I agree america is killing many innocent people. But what can we do about that? A lot of it is because terrorists hide behind women and children so when they are targeted with drone strikes or whatever they can use it as propaganda. And just because these things are going on, it does not mean we should sweep issues of mental health and gun control under the rug.

It's a nonissue in comparison.

No life (excluding terrorists, pedophiles or other scum of this nature) is a nonissue in comparison to anything.

You are falling for the distraction. The government wants you to focus on the insignificant so they can continue their agenda.

There you go speaking for me again. I am well aware of the atrocities committed by governments. This topic is about gun control, if you want to start a new thread feel free and I'll be sure to leave my opinion on the matter. But don't tell me I'm falling for a distraction because you're absolutely wrong.

What is your intention behind supporting further gun control?

So the wrong people don't get their hands on them. I'm aware of black market and criminals being able to purchase illegally ect. But most cases of domestic terrorism or mass shootings are done with legally acquired firearms. There are many cases of people getting their hands on guns in a legal manner that should have no business owning a gun.

If it's to safeguard people, then you are fighting the wrong fight. You should be speaking out against illegal wars and the bombing of innocent civilians to include women and children - this death toll is much more significant than victims of gun violence in the United States.

I do speak up about that, but that's a separate issue regardless of if it's a bigger one. Just because illegal wars are taking place doesn't mean I should not give a shit about innocent people losing their lives closer to home. dafuq is wrong with you.

[whoami]

Okay, we're finding some middle ground here. I can dig it. Notice we do agree on many things, so that's good.

My concern about the whole gun control debate is that for most people (not including the politicians) there seems to be good intentions behind it such as the points you are illustrating ("So the wrong people don't get their hands on them") but they aren't understanding that their method of doing this (leveraging government action) is not a good solution. These waters are still murky because who do you define as the "wrong people"? I'm sure we can agree on legitimate dangerous people such as known murderers, but where is the demarcation point? Most known murderers are in prison already. I see that you have mentioned mentally unstable people before, but how do we define someone as mentally unstable? Nearly everyone becomes mentally unstable at some point in their life. The mere emotion of anger is a state of being mentally unstable. Since the debate is about enacting gun control on a national level, how do we trust a group of psychopaths (i.e. the US Congress) to enact effective legislation for this issue? I just don't understand the logic behind asking a group of mentally ill people to conjure legislation preventing others from obtaining a firearm.

Also, another point that I was making is not that gun-related deaths should be dismissed but that the real picture needs to be understood. You are speaking from a position where you believe the citizenry has gone wild and civilians are shooting people everywhere day in and day out like it's the Old West. This is not the case. The real issue is with those deemed "legally authorized" to handle firearms unrestrained, i.e. military and police. These government bodies are killing more people with guns than civilians are - so why is there no outcry to disarm the [above the] law enforcement? In a perfect world, guns would not exist; but considering the reality, if one person has a gun it's best for all to have a gun as a sheer act of deterrence much like the current nuclear weapon situation. All us anti-gun control advocates are really trying to say is that increasing regulation is not going to effect the rates of gun violence in the United States. For one, it's because civilians aren't the problem - it's an out of control militarized police state that's the problem. For two, it's like buying weed - guns are everywhere. If it's illegal to buy one, you just go buy your neighbor's gun. No background check required and all regulations be damned.