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

Considering that he was once attacked onstage while performing at the Manchester Comedy Store, it’s interesting to hear Australian comic Jim Jefferies’ stance on guns – of which he is entirely opposed.

In this bit from a show he did in 2014, Jefferies brilliantly and hilariously points out the absurdity of America’s reaction to mass shootings as opposed to his native Australia.

“In Australia, we had the biggest massacre on earth, the Australian government went, ‘That’s it! No more guns!’ And we all went, ‘Yeah, alright then. That seems fair enough.’ Now in America, you have the Sandy Hook Massacre where little, tiny children died, and your government went, ‘Maybe – we’ll get rid of the BIG guns?’”

Watch:

Click to expand...

This video is pretty much what most Australians think regarding US gun control. For those passionate about their rights to carry arms, would love to hear your stance/opposition to this after watching the video. Would also love to hear from those who agree.

I know that this kind of thing can be a rather tense subject so let's keep it nice and civil fellas!

No thanks.

CavsSimmy said:

This video is pretty much what most Australians think regarding US gun control. For those passionate about their rights to carry arms, would love to hear your stance/opposition to this after watching the video. Would also love to hear from those who agree.

I know that this kind of thing can be a rather tense subject so let's keep it nice and civil fellas!

Click to expand...

What do you want me to say?

I mean, I think your country lacks freedoms that we enjoy. I think we here in America value one's individual right to protect himself, his family and those God given freedoms that we cherish most of all.

We aren't socialists. We don't believe that the interests of the whole wholly outweigh the interests of the individual; in fact, the reverse is often true, and rightfully so.

We don't come from a Eurocentric belief system that rights are merely privileges society gives to people; to be handed out and taken away at the whim of the State.

Instead, the People bestow the powers of government onto the State, and protect that social contract by threat of force. That's the purpose and intent of the Second Amendment.

It's really that simple.

Anyone tells you it's about hunting or sportsmanship is really pissing in the wind and avoiding the subject.

The problem is we have too many homicidal maniacs in this country. The guns just make it easier.

I am a gun-owner and firearms were the tools of my trade for six years. I have no problem with extensive background checks or even heightened checks for military style (assault) semi-automatic rifles. Sensible gun control laws are fine; problem is that the political system we currently suffer under makes any meaningful discussion next to impossible.

gourimoko said:

What do you want me to say?
Instead, the People bestow the powers of government onto the State, and protect that social contract by threat of force. That's the purpose and intent of the Second Amendment.

It's really that simple.

Click to expand...

I think you are understating the other purposes of the amendment as evidenced by dicta during the Constitutional Conventions.

Many other valid reasons were stated beyond the need to check tyranny. In any event, as a useful method to that end it is an abject failure. Rebellion and insurrection have always been punished severely. Small arms are no match for a military.

King Stannis said:

The problem is we have too many homicidal maniacs in this country. The guns just make it easier.

I am a gun-owner and firearms were the tools of my trade for six years. I have no problem with extensive background checks or even heightened checks for military style (assault) semi-automatic rifles. Sensible gun control laws are fine; problem is that the political system we currently suffer under makes any meaningful discussion next to impossible.

Click to expand...

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..

Lord Mar said:

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.

Click to expand...

Well, it can be both depending on the level of armament.

Also, define "Mass Media Event."

King Stannis said:

Well, it can be both depending on the level of armament.

Also, define "Mass Media Event."

Click to expand...

Anything you see on the news. No more posts from me I've made myself clear.

King Stannis said:

I think you are understating the other purposes of the amendment as evidenced by dicta during the Constitutional Conventions.

Many other valid reasons were stated beyond the need to check tyranny. In any event, as a useful method to that end it is an abject failure. Rebellion and insurrection have always been punished severely. Small arms are no match for a military.

Click to expand...

Stannis, I don't think I've understated it at all; I've focused on the primary drivers of codification. That being self-defense, preservation, and deterrent to tyranny.

This was the case for the English Bill of Rights as it was ours as referenced by the Supreme Court numerous times.

Sure there are other reasons to acknowledge the right to bear arms, but those, in my view, are the most important both historically and ethically.

Lastly, while I respect your opinion regarding the possibility of a rebellion, I strongly disagree with it. A well-armed and informed population is one that is extremely difficult to control by force alone. I highly doubt the United States military would or could be used as an effective force to suppress a popular rebellion in America.

CavsSimmy said:

This video is pretty much what most Australians think regarding US gun control. For those passionate about their rights to carry arms, would love to hear your stance/opposition to this after watching the video. Would also love to hear from those who agree.

I know that this kind of thing can be a rather tense subject so let's keep it nice and civil fellas!

Click to expand...

Funny stuff, but then my brain isn't stuck in a loop.

gourimoko said:

Stannis, I don't think I've understated it at all; I've focused on the primary drivers of codification. That being self-defense, preservation, and deterrent to tyranny.

This was the case for the English Bill of Rights as it was ours as referenced by the Supreme Court numerous times.

Sure there are other reasons to acknowledge the right to bear arms, but those, in my view, are the most important both historically and ethically.

Lastly, while I respect your opinion regarding the possibility of a rebellion, I strongly disagree with it. A well-armed and informed population is one that is extremely difficult to control by force alone. I highly doubt the United States military would or could be used as an effective force to suppress a popular rebellion in America.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree with your big three of defense, preservation or deterrent. I just thought you really emphasized the tyranny bit.

As for rebellion, I don't think the scenario is realistic. How popular would the rebellion be and why wouldn't such a large portion of the electorate be unable to influence policy? I'd be interested in your hypothetical because the rebellion would have to be huge for it to last very long against the military. The technological gap in the arms available to either side is too wide at present.

The numbers you suggest would be more indicative of a civil war.

gourimoko said:

Lastly, while I respect your opinion regarding the possibility of a rebellion, I strongly disagree with it. A well-armed and informed population is one that is extremely difficult to control by force alone. I highly doubt the United States military would or could be used as an effective force to suppress a popular rebellion in America.

Click to expand...

Informed being the operative word. Problem is that nearly every person believes he or she is informed. But, we know that isn't true because so many disagree with me.

Let him live in Detroit or drop Detroit in Australia and see if he changes his mind...

There is a really good old/dead thread on gun control, think it might have happened about the time Chris got hurt.
I think what gouri said is important and its one i often overlook. America is not founded on the idea of equality its founded on the idea of freedom. Now you would think those things might be equivalent but they are significantly different. Freedoms allow people to act within a wide range of tolerance. Equality seeks to narrow that range and by doing so raising the bottom and curtailing the top.
At the moment the global climate tries to do both and fails. So it is a case of trying to live somewhere that suits your preference.

I would be cautious with labeling australia with a socialist label though. Its politics and philosophy on certain things are far in the other direction.

Surely all people bestow their power onto the government by way of their personal vote. The US has pretty good voter turn out in 2012 of 55%, but even england manages to get 65% in 2010 in what was a lame affair with no good parties. Surely the threat of a vote is more powerful in the modern age than a gun?

I just think guns should be legal but only ones that have to bee reloaded often. i'm pretty proud of the UKs balance on gun legislation and how it has responded to crisis as they have arose. i think having that legal flexibility is valuable and why im glad the UK doesnt have a written consitution

Sumac13 said:

Informed being the operative word. Problem is that nearly every person believes he or she is informed. But, we know that isn't true because so many disagree with me.

Click to expand...

A consensus on what constitutes tyranny would be somewhat difficult to arrive at. After all, folks like Cliven Bundy believe the current government constitutes tyranny.

I think for a large portion of the population to rise, the nation would have to be pretty far up shit creek.

King Stannis said:

A consensus on what constitutes tyranny would be somewhat difficult to arrive at. After all, folks like Cliven Bundy believe the current government constitutes tyranny.

I think for a large portion of the population to rise, the nation would have to be pretty far up shit creek.

Click to expand...

I think a large portion of the country would give up pretty quick. As the nemesis of a significant proportion of all developed countries are stairs. Never wondered why there are lots of stairs leading up to heads of state?