Anti-gun people always need to make one-sided arguments.
If guns are so much more likely to kill the owner than anybody else, they why do we still have gun owners? Of course the reality is the guns are more likely to kill NOBODY than anybody else.
Love the usage of the term “Assault Rifle”. Yep, because anti-gun people call them “Assault Rifles” they can’t be used for ANYTHING ELSE! Note again, the people who named the guns this wanted to BAN them, not use guns for responsible reasons.
Lawful gun owners shooting kids EVERY day. Nope, but hey it makes a great joke!
More guns mean less crime. Have a look at our crime rates, as well as Australia’s.
Locked up guns. We all know the various solutions to this issue.
And of course the favorite one for anti-gun people: “Hey I’m just joking! I’m a Comedian!” That way anti-gun people can cite this crap as truth, while the people like me who refute them can be called a bunch of killjoys spoiling a good comedy routine. (And it’s a good bit, on composition and delivery…too bad the bits of truth are bullshit).
Also love the anti-freedom argument in the end. Yeah we need to govern our people to the lowest common denominator. That’s such a good idea.
Wouldn’t have as much of a problem with his routine if the anti-rights cultists weren’t using it in serious arguments all the time.
Can’t tell where the satire stops and the inability to reason starts. Not a single argument he made jokingly hasn’t been used by people like Sparky and others.
Did you catch the lie regarding the Port Author massacre? That it is the biggest massacre on earth? Let’s not forget Beslan school massacre. Or the Bath Township school massacre in 1927 that killed 38.
I love how the antis conveniently ignore the fact that many campuses have armed security or law enforcement already on campus. The Dallas Texas school district has their own police department !
And lets not forget the Norway shooting (because only guns count).
I saw this the other day, and was thinking about writing something on it. It’s remarkable the smugness that seems to only be possible when making arguments on a topic you have absolutely no real information about. My flatmates and I were just eviscerating his “arguments” as they came.
I think so many anti-gun people get that smugness out of fear.
Fear of guns. The antis are trumpeting that uzi accident in Arizona because they want curious people will be concerned that if they simply GO TO THE RANGE to see what this gun thing is all about they’ll be killed.
I remember having an Evangelical roommate in college. He didn’t smoke, drink, swear, or have sex. I actually took my first drink that semester, and was fairly experienced in those other things.
I remember he asked me if I thought I had had sex with my girlfriend 100 times or more. I had lost count, but did a little back-of-the-envelope math and determined it was likely between 100 and 200 times before we had broken up. He then noted that condoms were only 90% effective, and was AMAZED she hadn’t gotten pregnant.
Of course the 10% of condom failure has been shown in research to people using them incorrectly (wrong lube, bubble of air at the tip, and letting them fall off during withdrawal being the big ones) but that isn’t spoken about in sex ed, because they want you to be AFRAID!
For those anti-gun people who DO shoot and own guns, it’s fear of admitting they are wrong.
The ignorance is also a form of social signaling.
Consider the idea of a Victorian Lord taking pride in his ignorance of “tradesman skills”.
Much of gun control is also about class. And people who know about guns are the icky lower classes.
And there’s also another fear. Consider Evangelical roommate I’m sure he’s had some members of his flock who experimented with sex, drugs, and rock and roll and found out that it wasn’t as bad as they were told.
Antis have the same thing. Save for the ones in the most rarified enclaves most antis know someone friend, family, or other that has gone to the range and found out “hey guns aren’t so bad”.
Consider your own history Weerd. A certian bit of the anti’s ignorance is from the fear that comes from seeing what has happened when people like you became more informed about guns.
The_Jack: “social signaling”. I’ll go with that, too, among some of the anti-rights people. They’re often comfortable enough to have bought themselves into white-bread ‘burbs; they’re corporate, conformist types; the wealthiest among them can afford private, armed security, etc. They want to be ignorant, or at least appear to be ignorant of firearms that remind them of the world they’re trying to escape.
Their anti-rights/anti-freedom talk is another way of cocooning themselves inside their made-up world by lashing out at the world they think they left behind. (I know I’m stretching stuff a lot.)
Pingback: Australian Comedian Jim Jefferies On Gun Control
Pingback: Australian Comedian Jim Jefferies On Gun Control | State Of Tactical
Pingback: Anti-Rights Retread | Weer'd World