![maxresdefault[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/fdLyzrO.jpg "maxresdefault[1].jpg")
What is your rebuttal to Jim Jefferies' stance on gun ownership?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0
>I can't get to a gun or use one properly, therefore, nobody deserves to have them.
>>27940893
>>27940893
my rebuttal is apathy
The less we listen to people like theses the less they'll have power
>>27940893
"shut up you fucking cunt"
he would understand
>>27940893
>Fuck off, I like guns.
Actually, that's dead-on. I don't own guns for protection, I just like shooting.
As long as there's no unreasonable limit on the kind of/number of guns I can own, I don't care about legal hoops I'd have to jump through as long as it keeps criminals and loonie-birds from getting them and massacring children.
It's beholden upon the responsible gun owner to make sure that gun ownership comes with responsibilities commensurate to the damage a gun can cause.
>Tfw this guy is an embarrassment to me as an Australian
The only reason he's somewhat famous is because he made his living in USA where he could overhype the Australian stereotype.
"HAHAHA LOOK AT ME I SAY CUNT ALOT OH LOOK DRINKING BEER ON STAGE HAHAHA AMERICANS DON'T DO THIS AHAHAHAH LOOK AT ME GUYS I'M AUSTRALIAN"
There is this universal Australian psyche where we always have to play to the stereotype when overseas. More than anything it's a form of self mockery and pulling the piss out of ourselves. This guy doesn't do that, he just tries to hard. If you have to try hard to show everyone you're Australian, you're not Australian. Just a cunt.
>>27940893
There is no reason to refute retardation, his ignorance of the situation is pretty clear and he wouldn't be the type of person that would listen to your arguments anyway
>>27940893
>What is your rebuttal to Jim Jefferies' stance on gun ownership?
he's a comedian? he's trying to create humor above all else and everything he says should be taken in jest
>>27940893
I'm not watching 7 minutes to respond to a shitpost prompt. But he opened by saying he believes in our right to own them, but he personally doesn't like them. So what's the problem? What do I need to rebut?
>haven't had a shooting since Port Arthur
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/02/world/australia-shooting/
ohohoho really
>>27941025
>Hasn't been beaten since.
Try again
>>27940893
I like how he basically says Americans are retarded for wanting guns for home protection then goes on to explain how his apartment got broken into he got tied up and his gf could have been easily raped or killed.
>>27940893
Violent crime was never that bad in Australia, and it was already on the decline before the gun ban. And it's not like there are no mass shootings anymore.
>Hunt family murders
> Millewa State Forest Murders
>26 May 2002 – A Vietnamese man walked into a Vietnamese wedding reception in Cabramatta Sydney, New South Wales armed with a handgun and opened fire wounding seven people.
>14 October 2002-Dr. Margret Tobin, the South Australian head of Mental Health Services, was shot dead by Jean Eric Gassy as she walked out of a lift in her office building.
>25 October 2003 – Greenacre double murder
>18 June 2007 – Melbourne CBD shooting
>3 September 2009 – Millionaire businessman Michael McGurk is shot dead outside his home in Cremore Sydney.
>10 April 2010 – Rajesh Osborne shot and killed his three children
>28 April 2011 – 2011 Hectorville siege
>29 January 2012 – Giovanni Focarelli, son of Comancheros gang member Vincenzo Focarelli, was shot dead
>28 April 2012 – A man opened fire in a busy shopping mall in Robina on the Gold Coast shooting Bandidos bikie Jacques Teamo
>23 May 2012 – Christopher 'Badness' Binse, a career CRIMNAL well known to police, was arrested after a 44-hour siege - FIRED at police with a GUN
>15 December 2012 – Aaron Carlino murdered drug dealer Stephen Cookson in his East Perth home by shooting him twice in the head
>8 March 2013 – Queen Street mall siege
>29 July 2013 – Two bikie gang associates, Vasko Boskovski and Bassil Hijazi were shot dead
> September 2014 – Lockhart massacre – Geoff Hunt shot and killed his wife, Kim, his 10-year-old son Fletcher, and his daughters Mia, eight and Phoebe, six before killing himself
>22 October 2014 – Wedderburn shootings
>7 November 2014 – Jordy Brook carjacked a Channel 7 news cameraman at gun point during a crime spree
+ many more, regulating firearms is a joke
I'd like to thank him for his regurgitation of decade-old and debunked talking points.
On his last point "haha, it's just a joke, not to be taken seriously" I'll note that we're talking about an incredibly serious matter of life and liberty. Every bit as important as, say, his mom not getting raped. Now I hope his mother is never raped in her life, but if some jackass started making "lol funny" jokes about Jims mother getting raped and how it wasn't all that bad and that Jim was kind of silly for having a problem with it, I think Mr Jefferies would be a bit miffed.
In a sense, he is right. He's from a different culture and is willfully ignorant of cultural relativism, and will likely never fully understand.
>>27940893
Using a comedian to base a political argument is already a sign that you have lost as they are the least qualified people to argue political debates.
>>27941176
>On his last point "haha, it's just a joke, not to be taken seriously" I'll note that we're talking about an incredibly serious matter
This is how the political left operates these days. What they want - the unbridled growth in the size and power of the state, stripping civil liberties from the people, and making people dependent on the state for sustenance - is so abhorrent, even to people who were raised on welfare handouts, that the only way to frame the proposition without causing outrage is to say it as a "joke." This gets subconsciously accepted by many, so then when the leftist agenda is moved further forward, little at a time, people have already begun to accept it, and won't reject it outright, as they should.
It's like Google's depiction of the "veterans." Right now, people can still say "oh, but Google is a private company, they can do what they want with their website," even though they're not really a private company. For example, I am a shareholder and I wasn't asked to vote on this. But this way, when white men get written out of history in official government documents and taxpayer-funded museums, there will be less outrage. Some people will have already started to accept the proposition introduced non-seriously by Google in the past, so they will look to rationalize it before they react to reject it.
Why do liberals focus on banning guns because of mass shootings? it is a statistic anomaly that happens once in a blue moon, considering the 320 million people that live in the US, it is carried out by one or two people, an usually kills less than 15 people. Why don't they realize that 728 people are killed yearly with hands and feet, while only 679 people are killed with all rifles and shotguns combined. Do they not know that the violent crime rate skyrocketed in australia after the ban? The stupidity of these people amazes me, they operate solely on their emotions, with no regard to statistics or facts.
>>27941240
>Using a comedian to base a political argument is already a sign that you have lost
Welcome to the political Left in America.
My rebuttal is the same as when I heard Amy Schumer was anti gun, who the fuck is Jim Jeffries and why should I care?
>>27941299
Maybe he makes good points?
>>27941309
Yes nonsensical points based off of "oh gosh darn no holster and then you can never get it in time" or "I have it in a big safe with at least 3 lock measures like back in Australia".
He's a comedian. His job is to make me laugh...not give me his political views.
He's also Australian. Funny how people that aren't even American are quick to say something about a system they don't understand.
>>27941309
Are they better points than the second amendment?
How many people watched this to the end?
>>27941449
Judging from the replies almost no one
>>27940948
>as long as it keeps criminals and loonie-birds from getting them and massacring children.
>he thinks gun control works
Are you aware of what happened in Paris last week?
>>27941309
Maybe pigs will fly
>>27941332
His point was that the second amendment can always be changed and people who don't think that should look up the word amendment in a thesaurus
>>27940893
We already talked about this video. People agreed that he's retarded and not funny.
>>27941519
>thesaurus
How is a book about dinosaurs going to help us?
>>27941473
When guns are everywhere only people with guns will have guns
>>27941449
I only watch it for the American accent he does. I thought that was pretty funny.
>>27941309
>>27941320
>>27941332
*convincing points
>>27941254
The old guy at the back isn't white?
>>27941826
Compare his lip color with the ginger in the foreground.
>>27940893
he's a comedian. therefore I can laugh at his argument.
>>27940985
>his face when
>>27940893
I bet Parisians think this is fucking hilarious right now.
>>27940893
>mfw I realize my really anti-fun friend got his "facts" from this
Jim Jefferies is one of his favorite comedians and I recognize some of the line down to the letter because he has used them in arguments so often.
His bit on doing USO shows in Iraq still drives me into maximum overkek every time, so I'll allow him to have shit opinions.
>>27941907
I'm always wondering how I was able to be converted from the left to hard right and how I could (ethically) do so with other people.
>>27940893
I wish the audience would stop wooing like whores. I can barely hear the guy.
>>27941254
>For example, I am a shareholder and I wasn't asked to vote on this.
So, I agree with your points regarding the left, but it's important to note depending on the class of shares you have, you might not have the right to vote in the company at all, much less at the rate of 10 votes per share (as per the google owner shares).
I posted a response to his video ages ago which a friend of mine keeps reposting.
>Right up until 1996 we had guns
And we still do. Both legally and illegally
>We had the biggest massacre on Earth, still hasn't been beaten
Except it had already been beaten before it even happened.
>Since the gun ban in '96 there hasn't been a single massacre
Except for the 8 which have happened, with a total of over 60 deaths.
>Really? Is that why they're called assault rifles?
Right, the ones which are effectively illegal (yes, in America) for everybody except your beloved government.
>You're 80% more likely to use that gun on yourself than to shoot someone else
Except that I don't keep guns to shoot home invaders, I keep guns to protect myself from home invaders. The vast majority of defensive gun uses don't involve shooting anybody. Prevalence of guns also doesn't change suicide rates whatsoever. In fact, in the US guns are used roughly 80x more often defensively than they are in homicides, suicides and fatal accidents combined.
>You aren't going to be able to defend yourself if someone breaks in!
Except that statistically, guns increase the chance of survival quite significantly.
>Most of the people who break into your house just want your fucking TV!
Good thing I can tell who wants my TV and who wants my wife.
>You think a lot of yourself if you think everybody's coming to murder you
42% of all Americans will be the victim of a completed violent crime (assault, robbery, rape) in their lives. 83% will be the victim of an attempted or completed violent crime, and 52% will be the victim of an attempted or completed crime more than once.
>Let's give that c*nt a gun and see if things work out!"
Except literally nobody is arguing for giving teachers guns. Just letting the teachers who already have CCW licenses carry their guns to work.
>We'll put an armed security guard at every school in America"
Except that we're not arguing that either
[cont]
>>27942246
[cont]
>First reason: I'm making good points"
No, because you're lying to us and using the deaths of innocents to push your political agenda.
>It's called an amendment"
And you're free to try and have the amendment repealed. You are not, however, free to attempt to infringe upon it by banning certain types of firearms or accessories.
>(Where he implies that gun owners like slavery)
This is pretty sick. When you actually start to associate your opposition with something as horrible as slavery, you really need to step back and have a good hard look at yourself. That shit is not fly, and it's never acceptable to downplay something like slavery. My ancestors were actually Irish, so it would do him well to not think that I support it.
>I take drugs like a fucking champion
How's banning things working for you?
>Everyone should be able to drive as fast as they want, but they can't
Except our cars are physically capable of doing it, we just have laws against misuse. Your arguments aren't akin to speed limits, they're akin to banning cars.
>When they banned the guns in Australia it worked
Oh, the bans with the 23% compliance rate and which didn't have any measurable effect on the homicide or suicide rate? That's a bit of a broad definition of "working".
>You can have it delivered to your house
No you can't. Another lie.
>That same gun in Australia on the black market costs $34,000
Well they actually cost a lot less than that, but that's besides the point. SLRs are cheaper on the Australian black market than they are on the American white market.
>You can't just rock up at the black market going "GUNS!"
Yeah, you use the internet. Just like you probably did for those drugs that you take "like a fucking champion".
[cont]
>>27942263
[cont]
>And that made a hell of a lot of sense when it was just muskets. But the government has DRONES
The amendment guarantees the right to the same tools used by the government. What you're doing here is actually arguing for drones to be legalised, not for guns to be banned.
>We should all go back to muskets!
Except the government, right? They should keep their drones, right?
Honestly, Jim Jeffries is such a collossal cunt that I have no idea why anybody listens to him. Literally everything that comes out of his mouth is a complete and utter lie.
>>27940948
this. i dont need a reason to buy anything, i just can and will. i dont need to defend any purchase or right, and i wont.
ill just keep buying
>>27942246
>Right, the ones which are effectively illegal (yes, in America) for everybody except your beloved government.
There's some red tape, but it's not that hard to get them in non-shit tier states here in the USA.
>>27940893
Fuck off, I like guns.
>>27942292
>Huge amount of red tape
>Cost upwards of $10k
>Completely illegal if they're made after 1986
Yeah, I think "effectively illegal" is fairly fitting.
>>27940893
>>27941159
Aside from quoting this list of offences and various sources indicating the buyback was a failure, it's this little tidbit.
He lives, full time, in America. His family is there. His kids go to school there. He thinks it's safe enough.
>>27941001
The humor comes in the way it's worded. If you stood on a stage and said "I support gun bans because they cause mass murders", you'd be a pretty shit comedian. A lot of comedians like to spin their political ideals humorously.
>>27941309
He doesn't. They're all hypothetical scenarios.
He states some facts that can be sourced, yes. Yes, Australia doesn't have very many shootings after the gun ban, but Australia is incredibly fucking white. You'll come across fucking koala bears more than blacks or Mexicans. Of course in a huge group with no real diversity or differences there'll be less violence, guns or no guns.
That's pretty much his only solid point, and it's still weak as shit. Everything else is hypothetical shit done for laughs.
Here's the end all fuckening to this shitfucker's attempt. End of story.
http://r3druger.tumblr.com/post/125632508568/your-uncle-dave-southparkconservative
>>27940948
>as long as it keeps criminals and loonie-birds from getting them and massacring children.
Yeah them gun laws are doing a bang up fucking job at that, good call anon. You're a real smart guy.
>>27940893
>Jim Jefferies
Literally who?
>>27941254
>It's like Google's depiction of the "veterans."
Which is hilarious because White men make up the majority of enlisted and commissioned.
Especially in combat arms.
>>27941267
>Why do liberals focus on banning guns because of mass shootings?
Because there is a very visceral impact felt from mass killings, no matter how statistically rare they truly are.
>>27941907
Cognitive shaping is a bitch.
Especially when you combine it with laziness to actually learn about something.
>>27943579
It's really just because they think that they could be victims of mass shootings.
They don't care about black-on-black gangland shootings because they won't be the victims of it.
But mass shootings target affluent white people in their comfortable suburban lives.
That's why antis are so scared of them, because they only care about things which could possibly affect them.
>>27940893
Why is a rebuttal needed. He agrees Americans should have access to guns.
>>27943258
>white people live in harmony with themselves
>>27943604
That is part of the visceral impact.
Because regardless of what tards say, it is just really unlikely, at best, for someone to be shot UNLESS they are a criminal doing criminal things, or involved with criminals doing criminal things. That doesn't mean it's impossible to be tragically gunned down in some kind of cinematic gang land slaying crossfire as an innocent bystander, it's just more likely (~80%) that you'll be targeted by someone who has a criminal record (in addition ~50% of defendants have at least one felony), and it's about as likely that when you're targeted you'll also have a criminal history.
Combine this with the tiny "monkey sphere" people have and cognitive shaping + media saturation + social media, they subconsciously inflate their chances of being a victim.
>>27940985
This has nothing to do with op's question.
>>27940893
>What is your rebuttal to Jim Jefferies' stance on gun ownership?
Mine would be "suck my dick you ausfailian faggot."
>>27941519
That's just fine. An Amendment can do anything. It's like Wilfred Brimley's subpoenas in the climax of Absence of Malice.
An Amendment made alcohol illegal.
An Amendment made disproportionate taxes on income legal.
A single Amendment could turn the entire country into a filial monarchy, with Congress appointed by the new king.
A new Amendment could *certainly* nullify the whole text and original meaning of the Second (or any other).
The problem is, leftists don't want to do the work necessary to get an Amendment passed anymore. They want to win 50.1%, by any means, including fraud, and then rule by decree; if not theirs, then at least their loyalists that they appoint as judges.
But, if some comedian wants to call for an Amendment, passed through the process laid out in the Constitution, I say go right ahead. Prove us wrong. Get it passed by both Congress and the States.
And if you aren't willing to even try to do that, then please shut up.
