Follow by Email


Thursday, October 8, 2015

Responses to Jim Jefferies on gun control

My own little response to the video above; I wish Ryan Dawson would also mention other factors such as culture, availability of services, education, substance (ie drug and alcohol) use, presence of chemicals, and even what counts as a certain crime and data manipulation.
Also, I have nothing against law enforcement in general, and I won't comment on what should we do to make sure law enforcement officers do their job properly. Along with that, I am skeptical about having our military, law enforcement, private security, militias, or even fugitive recovery and bail enforcement (bounty hunters) or people in that matter getting trained in other countries.

In my view, people should listen not just to comedians but also to historians. Besides, I’m sure Jim was did not have his “serious cap” on, as that he is a comedian, and what is his job? To be funny and make people laugh, DUH!!! Heck, even starting at at 7:10 in the video, he explicitly says that he is joking, and because it it a comedy show it is not to be taken seriously. P.S: it took a lot of irritation to make this essay to please you, so I hope you take this more seriously, straighten up your face and open your mind; you may learn something. The link to my ultimate argument will be in this document, but you must look for the link yourself. Also, I might not have addressed every word he said, but at least most of it.

Statement 1, at 0:34 ; “I don’t like guns”. I wonder if he trusts law enforcement officers and military personnel with firearms, which is unclear judging from the video (though it sounds like he does not have a positive view of armed security guards as judged from statement 10).

Statement 2, at 0:44 ; “Biggest massacre on earth”. I am willing to bet that he was not thinking, does not know history and/or is outright lying. There are bigger civilian killing civilian massacres, like the 2011 Norway attacks, which, according to Wikipedia, claimed 77 lives (and according to the same article, a car bomb was also involved ). If you want to see the biggest mass killings and genocides in history, look up the word “Democide”. If you know anything about history, you should know a few events like the Holocaust, which is barely even touching the surface.

Statement 3, 0:50 ; “After that, they banned the guns”. They did not ban firearms, but actually restricted them more.

Statement 4, 0:56 ; “Since the gun ban, there have been no massacres”. This may be true, but how about OVERALL crime and violence rate? An article called “AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN” counters this (though I recommend doing the research yourself).

Statement 5 and 6, 1:44 and 2:07 ; “And 50% of you went ‘F*** you! Don’t take my guns’”, and “There is one argument, and one argument alone for having a gun, and this is the argument; ‘F*** off. I Like guns’. It’s not the best argument, but it’s all you got”. He probably is saying that, again, to be funny over being serious.

Statement 7 2:35 ;  “Really? Is it why they call them assault rifles, is it? Never heard of these f***ing protection rifles you speak of”. Why do names matter? If you are wondering why they coined the term “assault rifle”, here is an excerpt from the Wikipedia article on assault rifles; “The term "Assault Rifle" is generally attributed to Adolf Hitler, who for propaganda purposes used the German word "Sturmgewehr" (which translates to 'assault rifle'), as the new name for the MP43, subsequently known as the Sturmgewehr 44 or StG 44. Although, some sources dispute that Hitler had much to do with coining the new name besides signing the production order. The StG 44 is generally considered the first selective fire military rifle to popularize the assault rifle concept. Today, the term assault rifle is used to define firearms sharing the same basic characteristics as the StG 44.”

Statement 8, 2:50 ; “You have a gun in your house, you’re 80% more likely to use that gun on yourself than to shoot someone else”. I am unsure where he got that from, though this argument is addressed in a video called “Guns In The Home Will Get You Killed”.

Statement 9, 4:13, “By the way, most people who are breaking into your house just want your f***ing tv! You think there are people coming to murder your family? How many f***ing enemies do you have?”. I somewhat agree with this, as that I personally would think it is only right to do harm to people or animals when they present a threat to other people and/or animals. I also think that it is our responsibility to AVOID violence at EVERY opportunity. If there is violence, then we should DE ESCALATE it if we can. In short, I probably will not take someone’s life over a piece of property. But if they attack someone else and/or maybe an animal (especially a pet), then I think it would be perfectly justified to use force. The reasons for this are explained in a video called “Lethal Force & Property Crime”.

Statement 10, 6:37, on what he said about armed security personnel.  You can look up how armed guards have stopped mass shooters before. Just go to Ixquick/Startpage or DuckDuckgo and search up the words “Armed guard stops shooter”.

Statement 11, on what he said about slave ownership, from 10:20. I have a very negative feeling of comparing slavery with the right to keep and bear arms (and thus, defense of self and others). I personally believe that it is wrong to have slaves, but I think it is right to be able to defend self and others. There is not many other ways of addressing this logical fallacy.

Statement 12, 13:15; “That Bushmaster gun that the kid was going to use at Sandy Hook cost like 1,000 dollars American, and you could buy it in Walmart, it’ll be delivered to your house”. Actually, in the United States, unless maybe you have the right permit or you are buying a black powder firearm, I do not think you can really do it legally. You can pay for the firearms online and have them shipped to a local FFL dealer where you go there, go through the background check (which I do not have much of a problem with) (and perhaps fill out a 4473), and then you have your firearm. Though you should check this out for yourself, and also check state and local laws before doing this.

Statement 13, 14:55, onto government tech vs civilians; some people make the argument that the weapons possessed by civilians is little to no match to those possessed by the government. However, not only do many of the individuals who use this argument have little to no law enforcement or military experience, and often don’t have much knowledge, or at least don’t deeply think about history. Just ask people from Vietnam, Nicaragua, Iraq, and Afghanistan just to name a few. Guerrilla forces from these nations, along with various criminal and resistance fighter alike (often from third world countries) resisted often better equipped militaries, and succeeded. Sure, in some cases they did get help from external sources (communist bloc governments supplied communist Vietnam during the Vietnam war while the United States government supplied anti communist Afghanistan), but neither the less they won. Besides, anti armor and anti aircraft weapons can be captured from government armories and military units. Things such as aircraft, armored vehicles and artillery are often meant for SUPPORT and will NOT guarantee victory. I will not deny that technology will be a factor, but it definitely is not the only factor. It is not easy for military or law enforcement units to keep fighting when they gain little to no progress for their hard work.

This last part was taken from My ultimate self defense argument .

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comments are more than welcome on this blog! Please feel free to share your 2sense below.

ANYONE can post a comment here! There is not even word verification to hassle with, either!

By the way, if you know or have an idea as to why people rarely comment on this blog, please let me know!

Do you like my "Read if you're making assumptions about me" post?

Google+ Badge