Jim Jeffries - Gun Control
- Thread starter microphone head
- Start date
That's a pretty retarded argument as;Muad'Dib said:
1. I'm not suggesting to get rid of the 2nd amendment, if you read what I wrote I advised against more gun control simply because it would be ineffective in reducing homicide rates,
2. The difference in the level of weaponry available to the government and the people was dramatically lower then,
3. "Overthrowing the government", by the fucking way, is the funniest joke I've heard because American people are extremely apathetic towards their rights and livelihood being trampled on to the point of total retardation, except for useless things like gun rights and gay marriage which matter far less than real issues,
4. Fuck you.
The people who always bring up the fact that an AR-15 is no match for tanks and drones fail to understand the point. An AR-15 doesn't need to be effective against tanks and drones, it only needs to be effective enough to force the government to use them on their own citizens.
Because if that ever happens on a wide enough scale, then the government loses its legitimacy in the eyes of "teh people".
That being said, the bread and circuses seem to be working just fine.
Because if that ever happens on a wide enough scale, then the government loses its legitimacy in the eyes of "teh people".
That being said, the bread and circuses seem to be working just fine.
It is a semi-automatic varmint rifle in most cases, maybe automatic if you jump through a bunch of hoops and pay a bunch of fees. Cops wear body armour, AR-15's are good for killing poor people and civilians that aren't wearing kevlar, and not much else, if they weren't fucking idiots they would be trying to take .308 and .30-06 battle rifles away from people, weapons a disciplined military unit could shred cops with, not their little pop-gun cousins.
It's not about anything that makes any kind of sense at all, it's just dumbasses thinking "oh no that gun is mean and scary looking, let's ban it," and the sleazy shitbag politicians they like to vote for pandering to every idiotic demographic they possibly can.
I'd rather get shot with an AR-15 than an M-1 if I had to choose, but I’ve never ever heard of anyone seriously trying to ban M-1's, because they are made of wood and don't look scary.
The holes of absurdity in this statement are so big I could drive a truck through them. The fact that anyone can even think like this baffles me.
Ok Copernicus, so I should just lay in my bed, and let some scumbag in my house to take whatever he wants. I work my ass off to have nice things, and you think that it makes me "less likely to die" if I just lay there. This strikes me as a form of pacifism. Pacifism is a disease.
No one has the right to come in and take my shit. What you are saying is enabling evil and theft.
Your "lay there like a cowardly piece of shit" mentality probably won't work out too well for someone who has kids if some guy breaks in craving a smooth piece of prepubescent ass.
I can just imagine someone like you talking to their daughter saying "No sweetheart, I'm not going to defend and protect our things, or even you. We're just going to let our intruder do as he pleases in our house. That way we're more likely to survive...oh and he may try to put something in your butt."
Things are a little different where I come from because we have these:
Originally Posted by RotalihinnaYour legally owned AR-15 won't be very effective against Abrams tanks
You're delusional.
The holes of absurdity in this statement are so big I could drive a truck through them. The fact that anyone can even think like this baffles me.
Ok Copernicus, so I should just lay in my bed, and let some scumbag in my house to take whatever he wants. I work my ass off to have nice things, and you think that it makes me "less likely to die" if I just lay there. This strikes me as a form of pacifism. Pacifism is a disease.
No one has the right to come in and take my shit. What you are saying is enabling evil and theft.
Your "lay there like a cowardly piece of shit" mentality probably won't work out too well for someone who has kids if some guy breaks in craving a smooth piece of prepubescent ass.
I can just imagine someone like you talking to their daughter saying "No sweetheart, I'm not going to defend and protect our things, or even you. We're just going to let our intruder do as he pleases in our house. That way we're more likely to survive...oh and he may try to put something in your butt."
Things are a little different where I come from because we have these:
Stuff is just stuff. My life has much more value than a bunch of stuff and that's it. To me, risking your life for a bunch of stuff doesn't make sense, as I'm not trying to prove to anyone (including myself) what a badass alpha male I am. Material goods have close to zero value when compared to my life. "Nobody has the right to steal my shit", while correct, is not a principle to me that guides me in life and death situations. My life is the only thing I really have.
Having kids to protect is another matter. I do not have kids and do not plan on having kids. So, no to whatever you said about kids.
Gun crime has little to do with legality in the US and everything to do with income inequality and urbanization.
Is mexico 3rd world? Last time i checked they had a decently high per-captia income, yet their murder rate was two times to three times higher than the US even though their firearm restrictions are one of the toughest in the world. Brazil is certainly poorer (but has a relatively high income per capita compared to our hemisphere) and is 3 to 5 times higher depending on how you look.
When you view gun crime in America, there are essentially two Americas : Poor inner-city dwllers who are primarily black, and everyone else.
To demonstrate this, I live in a county outside one of the largest cities in America : Columbus Ohio. In our county, our murder rate is roughly 0.5 per 100,000 per year. This is about on-par with Switzerland in regards to murder.
One county north is Franklin where Columbus. The murder rate climbs to around 14 per 100,000. So, is the county suddenly more violent? Well, if you look at the crime data, murders essentially only happen in 4 zip codes (Very small geographic pockets, a few square miles). In those pockets, the rate of homocide isn't 14 per 100,000, it's about 80 per 100,000 or more than 12 times the US average, 14 times the Ohio state average and FOURTY times the rate of surrounding zip codes and ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY times higher than the entire county I live in (About 20x the size of these combined zip codes).
So, what do we find in these small pockets? High unemployment, almost no education, low incomes, primarily black citizens. Citizens in these pockets have disturbingly high chances of murdering another human being, or committing any time of violent crime in their life, at least up till the point of them being around 30, by which they've either found a way to make it in life or are already in jail.
To prove this point further, one can look at the breakdown of US murder rates by state. The lowest 3 states are all under 1 per 100,000. European averages are 3-4 over the same 100,000 citizens. Then the highest state in the US (Louisiana) has a murder rate of about 10.5-11 this is followed closely by Mississippi.
In each of these cases, you find that there's a signficiant corelation between income disparity, education, employment and murder rate.
So, then politicians and their millions of allies propose to fix the murder rate (And forget that the other, violent, non-murder crimes are still extravagantly high in these same localities) by making it illegal for law-abiding citizens as well as these small groups to own firearms. Even in light of the fact that a citizen who regularly carries a firearm and has a permit is actually more effective, and safer than a trained police officer at offering a favorable outcome to violent crime.
I challenge anyone who supports further gun control to debate the facts of WHO kills in the United States, and then tell me why making any of the 300,000,000 firearms in the US illegal will have any impact whatsoever on said group. Keeping in mind that 70% of murders in the US are commited with an illegally obtained firearm.
Is mexico 3rd world? Last time i checked they had a decently high per-captia income, yet their murder rate was two times to three times higher than the US even though their firearm restrictions are one of the toughest in the world. Brazil is certainly poorer (but has a relatively high income per capita compared to our hemisphere) and is 3 to 5 times higher depending on how you look.
When you view gun crime in America, there are essentially two Americas : Poor inner-city dwllers who are primarily black, and everyone else.
To demonstrate this, I live in a county outside one of the largest cities in America : Columbus Ohio. In our county, our murder rate is roughly 0.5 per 100,000 per year. This is about on-par with Switzerland in regards to murder.
One county north is Franklin where Columbus. The murder rate climbs to around 14 per 100,000. So, is the county suddenly more violent? Well, if you look at the crime data, murders essentially only happen in 4 zip codes (Very small geographic pockets, a few square miles). In those pockets, the rate of homocide isn't 14 per 100,000, it's about 80 per 100,000 or more than 12 times the US average, 14 times the Ohio state average and FOURTY times the rate of surrounding zip codes and ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY times higher than the entire county I live in (About 20x the size of these combined zip codes).
So, what do we find in these small pockets? High unemployment, almost no education, low incomes, primarily black citizens. Citizens in these pockets have disturbingly high chances of murdering another human being, or committing any time of violent crime in their life, at least up till the point of them being around 30, by which they've either found a way to make it in life or are already in jail.
To prove this point further, one can look at the breakdown of US murder rates by state. The lowest 3 states are all under 1 per 100,000. European averages are 3-4 over the same 100,000 citizens. Then the highest state in the US (Louisiana) has a murder rate of about 10.5-11 this is followed closely by Mississippi.
In each of these cases, you find that there's a signficiant corelation between income disparity, education, employment and murder rate.
So, then politicians and their millions of allies propose to fix the murder rate (And forget that the other, violent, non-murder crimes are still extravagantly high in these same localities) by making it illegal for law-abiding citizens as well as these small groups to own firearms. Even in light of the fact that a citizen who regularly carries a firearm and has a permit is actually more effective, and safer than a trained police officer at offering a favorable outcome to violent crime.
I challenge anyone who supports further gun control to debate the facts of WHO kills in the United States, and then tell me why making any of the 300,000,000 firearms in the US illegal will have any impact whatsoever on said group. Keeping in mind that 70% of murders in the US are commited with an illegally obtained firearm.
I love it when people use statistics to argue against property rights.
Sent from my Z10 using Tapatalk 2
Sent from my Z10 using Tapatalk 2
Gun control advocates don't like to admit they're morally-bankrupt thugs with sociopathic tendencies.
It muddies their "do it for the good of society" platform.
