It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Australian Comedian Jim Jefferies on Guns

page: 8
11
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Kryties

fine you got me, I forgot... its only been about 25 years since my civics class.

Difference is, it was abolished and private ownership of the firearms have been up held multiple time in the court systems.




posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Kryties

You don't own a gun, do you? You've never trained with a firearm for self-defense or protection of your family, have you? You don't have any idea as to the many ways that one can securely store a firearm, yet have near immediate access to it in case of an intruder in your home, do you?


I do, actually. All of the above.

Sorry to burst your little bubble.

You see, contrary to the loud voices of those who would have you believe we aren't allowed guns at all in Australia, we CAN own firearms after we apply for a license, pass a strict test, agree to be checked in on if the cops feel it necessary (which hardly EVER happens) and we cannot own ridiculously overpowered guns that were designed primarily for military use and have no legitimate civilian use. Those simple rules have prevented a mass tragedy from happening here for over 20 years.

You need to ignore the lies that all our guns were taken away because it is patently and demonstrably untrue. That lie was invented by certain people who try to bully and intimidate anyone who DARES question Americas gun laws into silence.


Instead of asking me for specifics as to why this comedian is ignorant to guns (aside from that he's from Australia, where he so eloquently states that guns are basically illegal)


Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. See above please.


I would ask you this: Have you done any research into training and gun ownership that leads you to understand that what this guy says it "fact?"


I live in a country that has proven it. As fact. Demonstrably.


edit on 16/6/2016 by Kryties because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Kryties

fine you got me, I forgot... its only been about 25 years since my civics class.


Google is your friend.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Kryties

My google foo is weak..

Im going to bow out, i am getting way to heated over so many people (now including a congressman) wanting to strip people of rights that have not been arrested or convicted of a crime without due process...

anyways Peace out, Ive got my whiskey and some BB king playing; gonna go mellow out.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: GemmyMcGemJew
a reply to: SlapMonkey
Australia have done quite well since the withdrawal of its guns. What's ignoramus about that? He sees it's benefits and has seen the good come of it ...

I could say you ignorant because you fail to acknowledge the success in Australia.


Well, you could, but should you? Sure, there haven't been any (arbitrarily defined) mass shootings. That is nice, but do you consider how that has affected all other branches of crime in the country? I'm guessing that you have not.

Let us take a stroll down Factual Lane, shall we?

Fact: Crime has been rising since enacting a sweeping ban on private gun ownership. In the first two years after the ban, government statistics showed a dramatic increase in criminal activity. 34 In 2001-2002, homicides were up another 20%. 35

From the inception of firearm confiscation to March 27, 2000, the numbers are:
•Firearm-related murders were up 19%
•Armed robberies were up 69%
•Home invasions were up 21%

The sad part is that in the 15 years before the national gun confiscation:
•Firearm-related homicides dropped nearly 66%
•Firearm-related deaths fell 50%


Fact: Gun crimes have been rising throughout Australia since guns were banned. In Sydney alone, robbery rates with guns rose 160% in 2001, more than in the previous year.


Fact: A ten year Australian study has concluded that firearm confiscation had no effect on crime rates. A separate report also concluded that Australia’s 1996 gun control laws “found [no] evidence for an impact of the laws on the pre-existing decline in firearm homicides” and yet another report from Australia for a similar time period indicates the same lack of decline in firearm homicides.


Fact: Despite having much stricter gun control than New Zealand (including a near ban on handguns) firearm homicides in both countries track one another over 25 years, indicating that gun control is not a control variable.


You have to scroll down about halfway to find that section dedicated to the myth that a gun ban has been a magical elixir for the country when it comes to stopping crime. But don't skip over the other parts of that page--it has really good info. I just wish that some of this stuff on Australia was a little more up-to-date.

While many, many variables in a study that deals with percentages in ever-changing populations can cause numbers to go up or go down, one thing is very certain overall: There has been zero dramatic difference for the better in crime and violence in Australia since the 1997 gun ban. Maybe no mass shootings, but those account to such a statistically small number of gun-related deaths in a year in America that, if we had no mass shootings either, it would really be statistically insignificant.

I'm just talking numbers, here, not emotions.

edit on 16-6-2016 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-6-2016 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Kryties

My google foo is weak..

Im going to bow out, i am getting way to heated over so many people (now including a congressman) wanting to strip people of rights that have not been arrested or convicted of a crime without due process...

anyways Peace out, Ive got my whiskey and some BB king playing; gonna go mellow out.


OK mate. Perhaps that's what more Americans should do, chill out a bit. Then perhaps we could all have a rational discussion about the topic. Incidentally, a rational discussion is the main thing that is being requested by those of us who think the gun issue needs to be addressed.

That's all, just a rational discussion. I don't think that's too much to ask, is it?



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

Let us take a stroll dowFactual Lane, shall we?



Mmmm. yes. Because that isn't a biased website WHATSOEVER. Nup.

*****End Sarcasm*****


EDIT: If it wasn't 5am here I would spend the time to find the proof that all those statistics and claims are nonsense. I'll do it later today, I should have been in bed hours ago.

So hold that thought.


edit on 16/6/2016 by Kryties because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Kryties

Firstly nowhere in the video does the speaker say anything about the AMA. Nor does the speaker say we the people of Australia want to turn our guns in. You asked about the video and I answered you as to the difference in my opinion.
Oh and as to forced on Australia


For a time, it seemed that certain states might refuse to enact the ban. But I made clear that my government was willing to hold a nationwide referendum to alter the Australian Constitution and give the federal government constitutional power over guns. Such a referendum would have been expensive and divisive, but it would have passed. And all state governments knew this.

www.nytimes.com...
from John Howard himself
So don't try and act as if ALL Australians were begging the govt to come pick up their guns.

Secondly you wish to belittle democracy in America when you face an opinion that differs from yours. You are correct there are some people in the USA that want more gun control. When they become the majority and elect like minded people to congress perhaps laws will change. Today those elected with intentions toward gun control are in the minority. We choose our elected officials, not a comedian, not an Aussie with an obvious anti gun agenda. You do not enjoy a fundamental individual right to keep and bear arms as American citizens do; never having had that freedom I can understand why you speak so easily about giving it away. It holds no value for you; it does for us. We will not so easily let it go.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Kryties

Firstly nowhere in the video does the speaker say anything about the AMA.


The videos do not say that, you are correct there. I never said they did however.

A simple Google search would show you it's been on just about every news channel/website though:

From: www.cnbc.com...

American Medical Association says gun violence is a public health crisis

The massacre in Orlando spurred the American Medical Association on Tuesday to formally call gun violence "a very public health crisis," and say the organization will "actively lobby" Congress to end a funding ban on federal health research into the problem.

"With approximately 30,000 men, women and children dying each year at the barrel of a gun in elementary schools, movie theaters, workplaces, houses of worship and on live television, the United States faces a public health crisis of gun violence," said the AMA's president, Dr. Steven Stack.

"Even as America faces a crisis unrivaled in any other developed country, the Congress prohibits the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] from conducting the very research that would help us understand the problems associated with gun violence and determine how to reduce the high rate of firearm-related deaths and injuries."

A congressional ban on CDC research of gun violence actually was lifted by an executive order from President Barack Obama in early 2013, after the massacre of 20 children and six adults in Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. But Congress has since blocked funding for such research.

Stack said that "an epidemiological analysis of gun violence is vital so physicians and other health providers, law enforcement and society at large may be able to prevent injury, death and other harms to society resulting from firearms."

The AMA noted it has "numerous, long-standing policies that support increasing the safety of firearms and their use, and reducing and preventing firearm violence."

The group said it "recognizes that uncontrolled ownership and use of firearms, especially handguns, is a serious threat to the public's health inasmuch as the weapons are one of the main causes of intentional and unintentional injuries and deaths." The AMA has also supported legislation calling for a waiting period before purchasing any form of firearm in the U.S. and requiring background checks for all handgun purchasers.


I shall address the rest of your nonsense post later on after I've had some sleep and when I'm not in bed on my tiny phone. This should give you something to chew on in the meantime.


edit on 16/6/2016 by Kryties because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 03:17 PM
link   
The only FACT that is relevant here is the US has a piece of paper called the US constitution.

I honestly don't appreciate it when FOREIGNERS tell me what my rights should be.

Start telling me what I need or don't need.

It doesn't fly with the locals, and it doesn't fly with so called 'comedians'.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

The US Constitution can, and has, been altered in the past when new information/circumstances come to light that invalidate it. Prohibition and Slavery are two excellent examples.

But, of course, you knew this right - being the avid scholar of the Constitution that you allude to being? I'm curious, however, as to why you ignore this fact when making your arguments?


(No more posts from me for a few hours, I'm putting my phone down now and going to sleep. I will answer any relevant posts when I return.)



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 03:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties
I do, actually. All of the above.

Sorry to burst your little bubble.


Then the question remains, what about his take on keeping firearms for home protection do you find accurate, assuming that you're being honest with me on this topic.


You see, contrary to the loud voices of those who would have you believe we aren't allowed guns at all in Australia, we CAN own firearms after we apply for a license, pass a strict test, agree to be checked in on if the cops feel it necessary (which hardly EVER happens) and we cannot own ridiculously overpowered guns that were designed primarily for military use and have no legitimate civilian use. Those simple rules have prevented a mass tragedy from happening here for over 20 years.



So, I see how it is, then: You accept the reality in Australia that your government assumes that you don't know what's best for you to own, so you're happy with them to put (IMO) ridiculous limitations on what you can own as a human being. Tell me this, then--what in the world would, say, an AR-style rifle do in your possession if you have no ill intent? Nothing, it'd just be something fun to have to take shooting or to keep handy in case of an intruder at night. So, why is it okay for the government to pretend to know what you are responsible enough to own and not own?

Citing mass shootings again...didn't I already note how statistically insignificant that number is in the grand view of violence?

Here's the thing, a .223/5.56 round is not "ridiculously overpowered" (and it's the round that supplies the power, not the gun). In fact, you'd probably be surprised to know how many times it's more likely to injure than to kill someone. There are nice little discussions and evidence all over the internet as to how the round is designed more for mass injury that lethality. You can look into that if you prefer.


You need to ignore the lies that all our guns were taken away because it is patently and demonstrably untrue. That lie was invented by certain people who try to bully and intimidate anyone who DARES question Americas gun laws into silence.


Just like in the UK, I KNOW that gun ownership is possible, but it is such an onerous process that it basically renders anyone except (generally) the most enthusiastic gun lovers or hunters unwilling to deal with the hassle. That may not be an outright ban, but any intelligent person can see it for what it truly is.



Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. See above please.


I used the word "basically" for a reason. See above, please.

Look, there are statistical pros and cons concerning the efficacy of the National Firearms Agreement in Australia. I tend to believe that the truth lies somewhere in the middle, which doesn't equate to a demonstrably proven massive success overall, just in mass shootings. Most of the other downward trends in crime were already in existence prior to 1996/97.

We won't see eye-to-eye on this, so I'll bow out, as I have a busy schedule for the rest of the afternoon and evening.

Best regards.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Kryties




The US Constitution can, and has, been altered in the past when new information/circumstances come to light that invalidate it. Prohibition and Slavery are two excellent examples.


Keep on IGNORING the FACT that 11 different amendments are in play here.

Keep IGNORING IT.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

I'm ignoring nothing. Those 11 amendments are part of the US Constitution, and the Constitution can be changed as it has been in the past when new information/circumstances etc come to light.

I don't ignore facts. Facts are very helpful.
edit on 16/6/2016 by Kryties because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 05:08 PM
link   
When I consider the mathematics of the number of deaths, the deaths due to "gun violence" are several orders of magnitude less than the number of deaths of human beings at the hands of governments who kill to promote whatever ideology or "progressive reform" they're after.

The "f-k off, I like guns" argument is NOT THE ARGUMENT. The #1 argument is when governments turn against their people, the only means the public has to defend themselves against genocidal tyrants is THE GUN.

Conservative estimates show at least 100 MILLION DEAD in the 20th century. That's the worst mass-shooting event in history multiplied by FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND. To tell a similar story with school shootings, you'd have to see a mass-shooting of nearly 200 dead people EVERY 72 MINUTES since 1950 to get to those numbers. Six o'clock news would get tired of telling the story by Tuesday.

www.hawaii.edu...

This should make anyone think twice when it comes to government-enforced disarmament.
edit on 16-6-2016 by povray because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-6-2016 by povray because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-6-2016 by povray because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 06:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn


Destruction/threat of destruction, destruction, destruction/threat of destruction, destruction.

If you were in that club as he fired into the crowd, you'd be clamoring, pleading, begging for someone to shoot that bastard as loud as anyone. Easy to sit here behind our keyboards and focus on the 'tool' he used.

You would have shot him yourself in an instant…


Ow the irony. And what did all that begging help in a country infested with guns? Nothing.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 06:10 PM
link   
What I don't understand is:

If you are so afraid of your government turning against you, why do you keep voting these people in?



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 07:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: zazzafrazz

Let them have them.
400,000: Americans who died fighting in World War II.


And we should have stayed out of it and let Hitler run wild until someone came out on top and then took out the winner.


400,000: Americans who died by household Firearms since 2001



Uhhh...no. Those are NOT household firearms. Many of those deaths were probably suicides and I don't care about preventing suicide. If you want to prevent suicide, make the world not suck. You wouldn't ban ropes to keep people from hanging themselves. You'd wonder why so many people hate life enough to hang themselves. So you'd have to assume the world must kinda suck if that's happening enough to be a statistic like that.

Most of the rest of those 400,000 (I would be willing to bet) are gang violence and criminals killing criminals. Very few of them are actually happening in people's homes. Old men who collect firearms are not running wild killing people. It's gangs and drug dealers. And most of them are probably liberals. Of course they use guns irresponsibly and don't care about the consequences of their actions because they don't care about anything. They're criminals.

If you can find me a statistic that says 100,000 Americans were murdered by old farts (who have no record of violent crime) with AR-15s in any timeframe, I'll be impressed. But you can't do it because it's not true. The main way someone is going to die by a household firearm is either suicide or an accident. Other than that, if you die in someone's home by their gun, you're probably not supposed to be there and the gun did it's job.

If you look at the areas of the country where gun violence is high, you find A LOT of liberal areas like Chicago and NYC and Los Angeles. I have never seen the statistics of the political views of most violent criminals but I'm sure it would be "interesting". How many old retired NRA members do you think are going to end up in prison for a drive by shooting? I don't care if he has 20 AR-15s an old man who likes his guns is not the guy you need to worry about unless you're trying to break into his home. That guy is never going to go on a shooting spree.

Anyway, can we live without the tens of thousands of criminals who kill each other with guns? I think so.
edit on 16-6-2016 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Move to Chicago, Detroit, Washington DC, and then tell me you don't need a gun for defense. Thing is, there are already way too many guns in private possession. I would guess that 7/10 law abiding citizens would either not turn them in, or hide them in a secure location. The criminals would carry on as usual, as most of the criminals carrying guns are already barred from owning guns, such as felons, or gangbangers in Chicago. Average response time for police in America is 10 minutes, and even if they do show up in a timely manner, you have just as much of a chance of getting shot as you do being saved by them.

Banning guns will do nothing. The whole "prevent crime" mantra is nonsense.

Don't forget, we have a MASSIVE surveillance state watching everything, and it has prevented a whopping ZERO terror attacks, including Orlando. Don't forget, we have MASSIVE amounts of airport security, and it has done a whopping ZERO for us as well.

People need to be MUCH more careful when they ask for the government to add more legislation and remove more freedoms. We all agree that the government is broken, but people on the far left CONSTANTLY want the government lording over us.

LEAVE LAW ABIDING CITIZENS ALONE!!!!



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 11:39 PM
link   
Im from the UK and I have guns in my house due to my father being a clay pigeon shooting instructor. The guns we have are only used to for and then locked away. Not to use for protection and that is where I feel the problem lies in America because so many people have guns to protect themselves people are ready to pull out a gun and use it. People can can us brits don't know what we're talking about when maybe we don't as we are not living in America and we do have gun control but when you can see how many people die from guns it is shocking.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join