Jim Jefferies on US gun control
_________________
You, too? I thought I was the only one.
I especially avoid any video that doesn't include at least a sentence description.
_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)
Oh, wow, when did this become a gay bathhouse? There's butthurt and santorum everywhere. Seriously, no wonder other members avoid this forum and don't bother joining in conversations.
This bubble you guys live in, is the reason why we can't have nice things and why people avoid you. Good luck with your guys circle jerk. Wash your hands when your done.
_________________
This bubble you guys live in, is the reason why we can't have nice things and why people avoid you. Good luck with your guys circle jerk. Wash your hands when your done.
Wow, what a clever and original statement, good stuff and really helpful, it sure showed us.
_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson
This seems to be the gist of Thomas81's interest in our gun laws.
http://www.wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=229659&start=15
I guess we naughty Americans are supposed to adopt draconian gun legislation so Tommyboy can feel all warm and fuzzy abut watching the news as it pertains to the US of A. Of course, when that doesnt work we'll need more gun control.....
_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson
This bubble you guys live in, is the reason why we can't have nice things and why people avoid you. Good luck with your guys circle jerk. Wash your hands when your done.
Please post within the forum rules.
thomas81
Veteran
Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland
Yet you took the energy to reply here.
What makes you think some of the America-can-do-no wrong rhetoric isn't just as irritating to us rest of the world posters? Don't dish it out if you can't take it.
Most Americans I know look down on Europe and Canada for several reasons, one because of high taxes. SOCIALISM! they scream.
Maybe our guns will spare us that fate. We want the government to fear us. We want the government thinking that at any momement a group of citizens could rise up and gun them down with super-power assualt weapons, if they dare take away our freedoms.
In Colorado there were two Democrat gun-control sentators that got recalled after passing a gun control law, because Conservative Democrats like their guns. This put the fear in the other Democrats to shutup about gun control. This event has its own wikipage now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_r ... tion,_2013
Actually this was mentioned in the bit. Do you really think the US government fears people with guns when the government has drones that can blow you up without you even knowing you are a target? Please. An army of citizens with assault rifles could be wiped out as easily as me stepping on an ant.
How many years has it been since we conquered Iraq and Afghanistan again? I keep forgetting.
_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson
Facts to consider in this hypothetical situation:
1) Like ants, we surround them; the number of privately owned firearms in the United States (270 million) dwarfs whatever arsenal they have. Therefore, I believe that, in military terms, it would be a turkey shoot.
2) Like the statement "you have to sleep sometime," drones have to land eventually (especially when they run out of munitions and are no longer useful unarmed); I believe that such landing fields would quickly become a skeet shoot to those who oppose their use against citizens ("Pull!"). And, that isn't even considering the ability of mediocre hackers who have proved the ability to digitally commandeer drones http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/1 ... gress-told .
_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)
Most Americans I know look down on Europe and Canada for several reasons, one because of high taxes. SOCIALISM! they scream.
Maybe our guns will spare us that fate. We want the government to fear us. We want the government thinking that at any momement a group of citizens could rise up and gun them down with super-power assualt weapons, if they dare take away our freedoms.
In Colorado there were two Democrat gun-control sentators that got recalled after passing a gun control law, because Conservative Democrats like their guns. This put the fear in the other Democrats to shutup about gun control. This event has its own wikipage now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_r ... tion,_2013
Actually this was mentioned in the bit. Do you really think the US government fears people with guns when the government has drones that can blow you up without you even knowing you are a target? Please. An army of citizens with assault rifles could be wiped out as easily as me stepping on an ant.
people fly those, people with families, people who eat, sleep and can be shot, people whose families may be the very people targeted, would you blow up your family cause some guy who you don't know, sitting in a bunker hundreds of miles a way without a care for anyone but themselves told you to? I'm willing to be most military won't target us citizens for the president. the reality is a lot of military makes up the pro gun people who would be the targets, kinda hard to have them kill themselves. you'd probably have troops walking off base with equipment, drones targeting the gov, shoot outs on bases, whole bases turning to the resistance etc. the marines tend to be very honor bound and swear to protect the constitution. the whole people with guns can't stand up to the gov doesn't understand the gov is people not robots, people who in the ground level are part of the communities they expect them to kill. besides that, can you imagine the moral when air force starts bombing US cities, the masses will grow to resent the gov, they'll start joining the resistance. just like in afgan like dox said. It's why we had to do all kinds of restrictive ROE, every civilian you kill causes 2-5 people or more to join the other side, you end up providing more man power and support to the people you're trying to kill.
no they won't use drones, planes, bombs, etc. they'll need to make them seem like terrorists, that the gov is the victims, you don't do that by bombing cities and having civilians die in the cross fire. or by locking down whole cities, besides we don't even have enough military to secure the whole nation maybe one state if you move all of them there. to be honest you'd be off worrying that if the nation goes into anarchy that there isn't enough man power to bring back order and if they do it might take years one city at at time.
luckily It seems highly doubtful that any of this will happen, still better safe then sorry.
How many years has it been since we conquered Iraq and Afghanistan again? I keep forgetting.
Ummm..., I think we ousted those governments pretty quickly. The rest of the military operations in those countries was not intended to be a conquest.
I'll tell you what I think is illogical:
The association with violent crime and gun legislation/rights. There simply isn't any conclusive evidence of a general correlation of either argument and violent crime worldwide, or the developed world. For every place the is one possible association one way, there is a another place the opposite appears to be the case. That tells you that there is an inconclusive result. Guns may change the nature of violent crime but its influence is not clear, it is certainly not a primary or even a secondary factor in rates of violent crime.
Another this POV perception. Point of view or first person imagining of hypothetical scenarios where gun may hinder/help. Individual perceptions, are known to be an unreliable indicator of general trends, it is known as confirmation bias. This especially applies to crime, and there have been studies on perception of crime vs. the reality. Don't get me wrong I'm all for individual views and doing what you think is right, but this is unreliable basis for policy.
The events that tend to cause the most uproar are extremely rare events. Especially spree killing.
Spree killing pathology has similarities with those that join terrorist group. the key differnce is the outlets, and the isolation. Both are about the person getting into a victim mentality, and failing to recognize their potential victims as so.
With violent crime, it is better to look as what cultures, and other factor are leading to this. If you took out the cities US wouldn't be that violent. US is a very violent place there is not doubt about that. The idea that the legal status of guns is a magic pill.
I don't think the UK views on guns is why we have a lower violent crime rate. The reason why our crime rate has reduced over the centrism is down to cultural changed. Even our underworld has shrunk.
US has gone through massive change, the great drive west had a major impact on culture (and even policing as "lawmen" were often lowlifes who dealt swift judgments, and I think this legacy can cause an impatience with due process, which can be branded as being tough on crime), as did the relationship between different groups migrating to the country at different times. I find it weird when people start talking of segregation in the UK, especially as segregation was once widespread in the US and that wasn't so long ago.
On of the myths you get is the police not being routinely armed in UK having something to do with gun legislation. Even though it predated the gun legislation in the UK by at least a 100 years. It actually goes back to the founding of the Met, and the concept of "policing by consent" that Robert Peel championed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_Principles
I would have thought this would echo similar feeling in the US, about fear of oppression.
The use of guns by police is a decision for head of policing in each county's force.
There are countries that do similar that have far less restrictions on guns.
It is cultural thing, which I will appreciate some will find hard to get their head round. But the net effect hasn't been clearly detrimental, and we have lasted this long.
So there isn't a one size fits all. Each country has to come up with their own solution.