Jim Jeffries on Gun Control
- Thread starter badselectioncommittee
- Start date
So you don't think you can protect yourself with a gun? This asshole can go f*ck himself. And that statistic about 80% being more likely to shoot yourself. has been debunked for years now. I carry my gun in my house for protection and when I'm wandering around in public, I'm carrying it for protection. And it has been proven, by an FSU professor named Gary Kleck no less, that more guns cause less crime. Further, the CDC has estimated that 600,000 defensive gun uses occur every year. Molon labe.
Last edited:
You carry your gun around the house? You must have a crazy wife.
I have a zero percent chace of shooting myself at home and less than .001% of someone else shooting me. How's that for some statistics.
You ever hear of an alarm system?
I have a zero percent chace of shooting myself at home and less than .001% of someone else shooting me. How's that for some statistics.
You ever hear of an alarm system?
Exactly what is an alarm system going to do against an armed intruder, dumbass???
Last edited:
I don't know, scare them into leaving? Seems to me that's a better strategy than getting into a shoootout with a bunch of gangbangers.
Most crimals are looking for an easy score, not to kill some random dude. This was addressed in the video.
I've lived in the same neighborhood for 25 years. Not one person has been shot by an intruder. Several have been shot by their own guns, including an 8 year old who was killed.
Most crimals are looking for an easy score, not to kill some random dude. This was addressed in the video.
I've lived in the same neighborhood for 25 years. Not one person has been shot by an intruder. Several have been shot by their own guns, including an 8 year old who was killed.
I have shot at a burglar, and killed a carjacker. I reckon i'm gonna keep my burner. Your mileage may vary.
And you are most likely better trained than the average gun owner. I've never said there aren't situations where it' helps. I just think it's a bad bet overall.
Mostly though, I just thought the video was funny.
Mostly though, I just thought the video was funny.
The only reason this nation has not went into complete hostile mode is because the possibility of someone being armed. U take the arms away from people and you can only imagine how brave evil people can be.
Sorry, but this is just a silly, paranoid argument with no basis in reality. There are plenty of civilized countries with strict gun control laws that haven't regressed into "complete hostile mode."
The REALITY that I live in is the world we live in. Not really paranoid just a good old fashioned American that enjoys my rights and not something that's up for a "bet" as stated above. Feel free to inhabit any of the strict gun control countries of your choosing, as for me I'll take my chances in a well armed society.
Oh, the old like it or leave it argument. Also addressed in the video. Sorry, I'll continue to voice my opinion in this country. Laws get changed all the time.
There are also countries with strict gun control that have out of control violence. A lot of the countries in South America fall into this category, with narcotrafficantes running around heavily armed and everyone else not. It makes for a bad situation, and usually requires military intervention to get crime under control. I've run under the command of contra guerilla forces as part of UNITAS and experienced it personally.
Check grabbers are one late tax payer hand out from strange looks at you and yours. We are 17 trillion in debt and at some point somthing will give. Continue to voice your opinion, and the regurgitation government schools have fed you. Never in history have we had so many depending on government to supply so many of the people's needs. Systems fail, and have throughout history based on the very fiat currency we have now embraced. It's a harsh reality.....I'd rather be armed....
So we need guns to protect against a repressive government? Congratulations, you've hit the the bad excuses jackpot. And you say you're not paranoid?
I've got no desire to take away your or anyone else's guns. Feel free to keep yours, just stay away from me. I just think a lot of these justifications are silly. Now go buy some more AR-15s before Obama confiscates them all.
A repressive government? You said it, not me. Maybe "I'll scare them into leaving" as your post above, and I'm the one that's silly..
The vast majority of violent crime is committed by a small percentage of people, overwhelmingly in the areas with the strictest gun control, and mostly with illegally obtained weapons...yet the leftists continue to want to take guns from everyone but them....enough proof that it isn't about guns about all. Furthermore, it is a mistake to say the gun grabbers are "anti-gun"...not true at all, they all have guns around them all the time....they just don't want the masses to have them.
Yeah, well no one is talking about taking everyone's guns away. Good straw man. That's just something the NRA and gun lobby throw out there to get more people to buy more guns.
And violent crime has dropped in areas where they instituted stricter gun control laws.
Yes, I have an alarm system. I also recognize that when it is triggered there will be a 10-15 second lag before the monitoring service either attempts to establish contact with someone at my house (to verify it's not a false alarm) or dispatch law enforcement. In that amount of time an intruder could get to just about any part of my house. Let alone the 2, 3, 5, 10 minutes it is going to take for law enforcement to arrive on scene.
I agree many criminals are looking for an "easy score" but at the same time you have cases like the 6 thugs in Wisconsin who beat a guy to a pulp and gang raped his wife. They were out to rob a particular house but went to the wrong address. Clearly they were not concerned about an easy score and the path of least resistance.
I agree many criminals are looking for an "easy score" but at the same time you have cases like the 6 thugs in Wisconsin who beat a guy to a pulp and gang raped his wife. They were out to rob a particular house but went to the wrong address. Clearly they were not concerned about an easy score and the path of least resistance.
Like to know the cities in the US where crime is down because of strict gun laws, Chicago? New York? Let me guess, it must be a city in which the main voting demographic is Democrat that these strict laws must be enforced. Until the border is secure the cartels will ship arms across by the case load, your laws will eventually choke out the law abiding, while gangs and thugs continue to carry.
Give em an inch and they WILL take a mile. I see how the topic of conversation has turned from people shooting themselves to the evil firearms manufacturer and NRA. Keep searching and you might find a winning argument. Still waiting on those cities, yea the ones whose tax paying base is leaving for those less strict gun law cities.
Sad how NRA money (who is supported by its own paying members) and it's "lobby" gets hammered to the extent it does in its support for a right given by the constitution.
Considering the increasing frequency with which the administrative state shuts down rogue lemonade stands across the country, such concerns regarding firearms are not overblown.
And the reality is, the money follows the votes, not the other way around. I wish the NRA really did have the power they are accused of, then we could get some real work done, like repeal NFA restrictions, have national reciprocity, in fact have national constitutional carry, forbid local and state govts from things like waiting periods, one gun a month, magazine limits, and other mindless laws that make citizens into criminals but have no effect on violence.
I have read that the majority of the NRA membership is in favor of these restrictions of which you speak.
Chicago: Murder rates down 45% from the time the handgun restrictions were put in place
Washington: Murder rates down 55% from their peak in 1991 until the handgun ban was overturned.
P.S. I'm in favor of a more secure border, but that is also a straw man.
Yep, Chicago really represented today. The New York Times article that just came out seems to have different numbers than the ones you have just stated...much different
A very rare intance. While I'm sure most of the Billy Jacks on this board would be OK, very few people would stand a chance against 6 armed thugs. And at least no one died. Having a gun didn't help Sean Taylor.
My alarm system goes off as soon as someone enters, and my dog will be barking even before that. If they are determined to enter with a loud siren blaring, I'll have plenty of time to head out the back door. I have no desire to get into a shootout with a bunch of thugs.
Come on, grow a pair, don't run for the backdoor, and for crying out loud don't forget the dog. Some folks have a little more confidence in there own situation I guess.
I don't think you have to worry about the gun control lobby outspending the gun lobby:
Political Contributions from 1990 to 2010 to federal candidates:
Gun Rights $22,467,579
Gun Control $1,888,886
I would match my pair against yours.
Seriously Martha, do you really think you would stand a chance? Have you ever shot anyone? How much training have you had, and shooting at a fixed target at a gun range doesn't count. Me thinks you are overestimating your bad assedness.
Similar threads
