Jim Jeffries - Gun Control
- Thread starter microphone head
- Start date
From what I understand, Hitler's regime passed laws that prohibited Jews from owning guns. Jews who owned them were expected to surrender them. From wiki:
Do you have proof that the above never happened? If not, would you mind explaining how you define "confiscation of firearms?"
I have no idea if Hitler said it or not. But if you're going to call something a fraud, the burden of proof is on you. Can you substantiate your claim?
Scott listed several great points. Yet you're attacking him without making a substantive point yourself. Have the decency to either back up your insult or retract it with an apology.
You yanks have so many fucking guns that control is now impossible making this whole argument moot. You now rely on a form of mutually assured destruction to prevent violence from which there is no going back.
It's like either everybody having herpes or nobody having herpes, it's only a problem when you're somewhere in the middle.
Other countries like my own have managed to avoid breeding a gun culture and the proliferation of weaponry, we are herpes-free. I do enjoy going out at night and walking down darkened alleys with no fear of coming face to face with a barrel, but that's just me.
Would I feel safer walking down the same darkened alley with a gun in my pants, knowing there is a high probability of an assailant carrying a lead blaster too? The answer is no. Again, that is just me.
It's like either everybody having herpes or nobody having herpes, it's only a problem when you're somewhere in the middle.
Other countries like my own have managed to avoid breeding a gun culture and the proliferation of weaponry, we are herpes-free. I do enjoy going out at night and walking down darkened alleys with no fear of coming face to face with a barrel, but that's just me.
Would I feel safer walking down the same darkened alley with a gun in my pants, knowing there is a high probability of an assailant carrying a lead blaster too? The answer is no. Again, that is just me.
LOL @ Hitler and Mao's gun control laws...
How about those prosperous European nations with very strict gun laws? Are their governments killing them one by one?
... or maybe is it the opposite, and they're enjoying a very high standard of living? Their governments ( = police force) RARELY kill people, even though the people are a "bunch of pussies without guns".
I'm not even advocating more gun control. Hell no. As I said above, war on drugs failed, so war on guns would also fail, no question. I'm just laughing my ass off at the "they will massacre us if we don't have guns" logic.
They will massacre you if they want to massacre you, and that's the end of the question. Your legally owned AR-15 won't be very effective against Abrams tanks, Apache helicopters and fucking nuclear bombs. If your government wants you dead, you are dead.
How about those prosperous European nations with very strict gun laws? Are their governments killing them one by one?
... or maybe is it the opposite, and they're enjoying a very high standard of living? Their governments ( = police force) RARELY kill people, even though the people are a "bunch of pussies without guns".
I'm not even advocating more gun control. Hell no. As I said above, war on drugs failed, so war on guns would also fail, no question. I'm just laughing my ass off at the "they will massacre us if we don't have guns" logic.
They will massacre you if they want to massacre you, and that's the end of the question. Your legally owned AR-15 won't be very effective against Abrams tanks, Apache helicopters and fucking nuclear bombs. If your government wants you dead, you are dead.
nice science there, bro
How do you prove that someone did NOT say something? When you make a claim about what Hitler said, the burden of proof is on you, since you can prove it happened, but no one can prove it didn't happen.
Jesus people say the funniest shit sometimes
Which, in a sense, is irrelevant since jews were considered second class citizens. Of course they weren't allowed to possess guns.
It's funny how you're implying that "Hitler confiscated their guns" somehow means "Hitler confiscated the jews' guns".
No, the burden of proof is not on me. In any case, http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4029&context=flr
It's very simple, Jake. If Scott were interested in knowing the truth, he could at least have bothered to look it up.
It's not as simple as you claim Jokerr. The U.S. legal system is based on a presumption of innocence. Prosecutors in both civil and criminal cases are obligated to present evidence of their allegations against defendants.
In civil cases, the burden of proof need only satisfy a "preponderance of the evidence." In criminal cases, there needs to be "clear and convincing evidence" of the claim. Neither standard has been satisfied in this thread.
You posted a link to an excerpt from the 2004 edition of the Fordham Law Review. It mentions the quote supposedly made by Hitler (on page 7 of 29 for anybody who cares). But unless I've missed something, the author never claims the quote is inaccurate. He makes a subtle reference to it in that light - a weasel tactic often used by today's "journalists" - but never calls foul. He says:
Notice the words "probably" and "likely?" That would never work in a courtroom, and Harcourt knows it. He knows the evidence is insufficient.
So is the Hitler quote correct or incorrect? Hell if I know. I've seen no proof on either side. Personally, when I see a quote attributed to a deceased historical figure, I think to myself "I can't trust it unless I see proof." But calling it a fraud is something entirely different - at least from a legal standpoint.
I would never go that far since the burden of proof would be on me, and I probably wouldn't be able to satisfy it.
I claimed that the "quote is most likely a fraud" due to the fact that I haven't found a single source verifying its authenticity. I have however found several sources debunking it.
What kind of proof are you looking for? A passage in "Mein kampf" that says "by the way, that quote is a fraud"? IF Hitler actually said, it should be very easy for you, or anyone for that matter, to provide any kind of evidence. I can't possibly prove that Hitler did not say it.
20% of you will realize it's a comedy show......
I go to comedy shows often. Comedians make stuff up because it's funny. A guy was going on about how 90% of people have herpes. He was making fun of the 10% of people who don't. It's not true, but it was funny.
This fucking thread oh my god
I go to comedy shows often. Comedians make stuff up because it's funny. A guy was going on about how 90% of people have herpes. He was making fun of the 10% of people who don't. It's not true, but it was funny.
This fucking thread oh my god
Man, I feel silly. I'll get a team right on verifying that quote. I didn't mean to unintentionally smear Hitler based on false information. But I've learned a valuable lesson.
From now on I'll judge people, especially politicians, by their actions and not their words. Oh wait...
And if you read my post, I didn't put that graph up to talk about confiscation. All governments push to regulate and confiscate. It was to illustrate how evil Governments can (and will) be.
I don't defend gun ownership because of the 2nd Amendment. That document is about as useless as the antiquated paper it's written on. It's about property rights.
Starting with self-ownership. You own yourself, you're allowed to protect yourself. Whether that's from an intruder, a dog, a bear - whatever it is it's none of my business if you're not hurting anyone.
No one has yet to address the moral side of my argument...
And for those saying it's a comedy show...
I watched this on Netflix a night or two before I saw this thread. I thought it was one of his better specials. I laughed at parts of this bit - like "You're bringing fucking guns to a drone fight". I enjoyed it.
He's one of my favorite comedians - although he's hit and miss.
That was my exact point! The answer is so obviously yes that I didn't think the joke would be missed.
A Harvard Study titled "Would Banning Firearms reduce Murder and Suicide" looks at figures for "intentional deaths" throughout continental Europe and juxtaposes them with the U.S. to show that more gun control does not necessarily lead to lower death rates or violent crime.
Because the findings so clearly demonstrate that more gun laws may in fact increase death rates, the study says that "the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths" is wrong.
For example, when the study shows numbers for Eastern European gun ownership and corresponding murder rates, it is readily apparent that less guns to do not mean less death. In Russia, where the rate of gun ownership is 4,000 per 100,000 inhabitants, the murder rate was 20.52 per 100,000 in 2002. That same year in Finland, where the rater of gun ownership is exceedingly higher--39,000 per 100,000--the murder rate was almost nill, at 1.98 per 100,000.
Looking at Western Europe, the study shows that Norway "has far and away Western Europe's highest household gun ownership rate (32%), but also its lowest murder rate."
And when the study focuses on intentional deaths by looking at the U.S. vs Continental Europe, the findings are no less revealing. The U.S., which is so often labeled as the most violent nation in the world by gun control proponents, comes in 7th--behind Russia, Estonia, Lativa, Lithuania, Belarus, and the Ukraine--in murders. America also only ranks 22nd in suicides.
The murder rate in Russia, where handguns are banned, is 30.6; the rate in the U.S. is 7.8.
The authors of the study conclude that the burden of proof rests on those who claim more guns equal more death and violent crime; such proponents should "at the very least [be able] to show a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that impose stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide)." But after intense study the authors conclude "those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared around the world."
In fact, the numbers presented in the Harvard study support the contention that among the nations studied, those with more gun control tend toward higher death rates.
- Harvard bitches
Because the findings so clearly demonstrate that more gun laws may in fact increase death rates, the study says that "the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths" is wrong.
For example, when the study shows numbers for Eastern European gun ownership and corresponding murder rates, it is readily apparent that less guns to do not mean less death. In Russia, where the rate of gun ownership is 4,000 per 100,000 inhabitants, the murder rate was 20.52 per 100,000 in 2002. That same year in Finland, where the rater of gun ownership is exceedingly higher--39,000 per 100,000--the murder rate was almost nill, at 1.98 per 100,000.
Looking at Western Europe, the study shows that Norway "has far and away Western Europe's highest household gun ownership rate (32%), but also its lowest murder rate."
And when the study focuses on intentional deaths by looking at the U.S. vs Continental Europe, the findings are no less revealing. The U.S., which is so often labeled as the most violent nation in the world by gun control proponents, comes in 7th--behind Russia, Estonia, Lativa, Lithuania, Belarus, and the Ukraine--in murders. America also only ranks 22nd in suicides.
The murder rate in Russia, where handguns are banned, is 30.6; the rate in the U.S. is 7.8.
The authors of the study conclude that the burden of proof rests on those who claim more guns equal more death and violent crime; such proponents should "at the very least [be able] to show a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that impose stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide)." But after intense study the authors conclude "those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared around the world."
In fact, the numbers presented in the Harvard study support the contention that among the nations studied, those with more gun control tend toward higher death rates.
- Harvard bitches
Two things always get brought up when these discussions arise. First is the "Australia banned guns and now there is no more violence" nonsense. Second is the claim that access to guns somehow contributes to higher gun violence.
First, Australia has more guns now than they did before the confiscation in the 90's.
Second, as you can see from this table, gun violence has no correlation to gun ownership rates in the US.
It's almost as if something other than guns is the real problem.
First, Australia has more guns now than they did before the confiscation in the 90's.
Second, as you can see from this table, gun violence has no correlation to gun ownership rates in the US.
It's almost as if something other than guns is the real problem.
You forgot to mention members who don't contribute anything to the discussion and propound sweeping generalizations about a complex topic (without citing any data whatsoever) in a condescending attempt to "transcend" the issue entirely.
I think that's apples and oranges. Different histories, different cultures, different politics. It's a difficult comparison to make with confidence.
Also, Switzerland called and said it is monitoring this thread.
I agree that if your government wants you dead they'll find a way to kill you. And these days with race-specific bio-weapons and other interesting things on the shelf it's a lot more tricky than our guns against yours. I don't think that settles it though. I don't think the US power elite is currently in a comfortable position to simply start nuking cities or killing shitloads of Americans with open force, even with a good story on top. 9/11 was hard enough for them and they botched that pretty thoroughly.
I would also suggest that small arms are indeed a deterrent for larger arms when used properly. I heard once that the Afghanis know a thing or two about this.
This.
edit: posting in a wf debate thread
It's rap music and video games. I know this, because some blond, ditzy looking chick on FOX News told me.