This Australian Comic’s Take on America’s Absurd Gun Laws is Brilliant (Video)

[Sebastian]

Good. The Constitution says I can have nukes and an army. If you want to join me @The Human Q-Tip and @gourimoko we can finally subdue the land of Libertaria.

Bend the knee @OptimusPrime. While you still have the chance.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Just realized I've already lost just by arguing with this guy.

Admittedly, that realization took awhile, but better late than never.

 

[Maximus]

Just realized I've already lost just by arguing with this guy.

Admittedly, that realization took awhile, but better late than never.

It's not a guy, it's a robot...

 

[Otsego Mar]

I have to pay $50 for a renewal of my concealed handgun license, which includes a background check and fingerprinting.

CRIMINALS WILL NEVER DO THESE THINGS. Nor should a free country.

Lee, you will never get it. I will take my chances with a pistol over a rubberband against a maniac with an assault rifle any day. You also oversensationalize (a common symptom of mass media pandering) and underestimate how hard it actually is to accurately fire a handgun/rifle.

 

[gourimoko]

Good. The Constitution says I can have nukes and an army. If you want to join me @The Human Q-Tip and @gourimoko we can finally subdue the land of Libertaria.

Bend the knee @OptimusPrime. While you still have the chance.

If the government would let me build uranium enrichment centrifuges... I would be building uranium enrichment centrifuges... among other things...

 

[Lee]

I have to pay $50 for a renewal of my concealed handgun license, which includes a background check and fingerprinting.

CRIMINALS WILL NEVER DO THESE THINGS. Nor should a free country.

Lee, you will never get it. I will take my chances with a pistol over a rubberband against a maniac with an assault rifle any day. You also oversensationalize (a common symptom of mass media pandering) and underestimate how hard it actually is to accurately fire a handgun/rifle.

I get it, just statistics dont support your argument. Very little chance you are able to get to your gun or draw it in time.

But i do support your right to own a weapon, i dont think it should be taken away just like you support my rights to eat matzo balls.

 

[Sebastian]

If the government would let me build uranium enrichment centrifuges... I would be building uranium enrichment centrifuges... among other things...

Like having a harem?

 

[Otsego Mar]

I get it, just statistics dont support your argument. Very little chance you are able to get to your gun or draw it in time.

But i do support your right to own a weapon, i dont think it should be taken away just like you support my rights to eat matzo balls.

A chance is a chance, as small as your perception may allow you to conceptualize based on supposid statistics.

 

[Otsego Mar]

If the government would let me build uranium enrichment centrifuges... I would be building uranium enrichment centrifuges... among other things...

Who says anybody's gotta let you do anything, gouri? You mean, let you do something without the threat of repercussion? Like, for instance, growing a certain plant or ingesting a certain plant, or not getting a vaccine, or.....¿

 

[Lee]

A chance is a chance, as small as your perception may allow you to conceptualize based on supposid statistics.

Fair enough argument, but the same statistic does show you are more likely to have a family member shot by your gun than an actual intruder or bad guy.

That goes back to proper gun storage and safety, and you dont strike me as the stupid with weapons type, so the point becomes a bit moot.

And it is for this reason i support your rights to own reasonable weapons, ie own a rifle but cant own a nuclear war head.

 

[Lee]

PS,

A similar argument is for seat belts. I think it should be unconstitutional to mandate i wear a seat belt although personally i think you an idiot if you chose not to wear one.

 

[gourimoko]

Like having a harem?

That too... definitely.. 72 sounds like a nice number.. Hamdullah..

 

[Otsego Mar]

Fair enough argument, but the same statistic does show you are more likely to have a family member shot by your gun than an actual intruder or bad guy.

That goes back to proper gun storage and safety, and you dont strike me as the stupid with weapons type, so the point becomes a bit moot.

And it is for this reason i support your rights to own reasonable weapons, ie own a rifle but cant own a nuclear war head.

You see, that same statistic doesn't support my experience (my reality), as mentioned in your next sentence, rendering it moot. Statistics are not necessarily the end-all-be-all, as statistical information can be and has been used to sway opinion and cannot be seen as 100% accurate.

The biggest problem I see with your response is the bolded. Who gets to determine what is reasonable? The Individual? Society? The Government? I'm assuming your answer would be The Government.

Would it be reasonable to assume that the government might not have my best interest at hand? Have we seen this perpetuated throughout history?.....the answer to that would be most certainly yes. Therein lies the dilemma, which leads to my underlying viewpoint - you worry about yourself and I worry about me.

I'm not going to argue for the ability to possess nuclear weapons. If you argue for the complete ban of guns and rifles, you need to first argue for the ban of nuclear weapons - which in my opinion, have absolutely no benefit to mankind.

 

[JSS2306]

I'm pro-gun but it's funny to me that the same people that want to "demilitarize" our police force are also for protecting one's self with a gun?

I guess the rationale that criminals have guns too just completely flies out the window, eh?

Tasers for everyone!

When someone enters your home and you can't see a gun you should just assume that they are not weaponized so you should first taser them by mandate. Now make it happen congress!

 

[DJTJ]

I'm glad you opened with the bolded, which is exactly why guns are the prime defense weapon.

Even if those homicidal maniacs didn't have access to guns, they would still find a way to kill innocent children, innocent people - because they are homicidal. Yes, without guns they may not kill more than a few at a time, but explosives and knives and bats and a 4 door vehicle can do much damage.

The mass media events (real or not) are there to shape public opinion and they cast fear in the minds of a rather weak populace.

You say the guns make it easier for the homocidal maniac; I say the guns make it easier to defend myself, my family, and others from those homicidal maniacs - which includes the government if need be, which was the original intent behind the 2nd amendment..

The bold is pretty absurd. You basically admit in the italics that guns would limit mass massacres (which the video focuses on), but try to justify your stance with an absurd assumption that without guns people would start running over innocent children with a car/truck/suv, or start to stab multiple people, neither of which would ever happen. The types of people who commit single event mass murder crimes are dependent on guns, because they're too incompetent to commit a close quarters violent crime.

Second, I can't honestly believe you've never ever been in a situation where you've had to pull and use a weapon on someone who was threatening yourself or your family, let alone one where your government was the culprit. The notion to defend yourself from a situation that hasn't ever existed to you personally lumps you into the mass media fearmonger crowd.