His follow up show references that routine and he talks about how it might have made him a target. FreeDumb [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDdwT3xQpZg[/youtube] Great comedian.
With all due respect - he's wrong. He's funny - he's a comedian - but I wouldn't put my life in his hands. Feel free to put your faith in a comedy routine, but you shouldn't compel others to. There are many examples of normal mum and dads defending themselves (likely saving their lives), because they were allowed to defend themselves. Not as funny as Jim Jeffries, but deadly serious. [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxBcCSaBtXc[/youtube]
4 young men tried to break into a friend's house while he was there. The men agreed with each other they could take him together while he was on 000 trying to get the police. They were outside when he shouted at them through a glass door he was calling the cops. They laughed and started to break through the glass. He ran to his gun locker, fumbling with the phone in one hand and simply pulling out his unloaded pistol caused the men to run. The police arrived an hour later. I was on Julie's side until this week. I'm taking myself and my missus on a full gun training course and getting one for the house. Yes I know the risks. But Australia is full of ice. Self defense just got personal for me.
And that's the point of personal responsibility. Everyone's situation is hugely different - putting a blanket ban on self defense for everyone ignores the differing needs and capabilities of individuals. "Self defense is the most fundamental aspect of individualism - it means you get to defend yourself, your family, your own life - even if it doesn't benefit the collective... you matter individually...Trying to save your life - this is morally good." (Ben Shapiro)
Well, there is but it has more to do with why people have guns, not just whether or not they have them. Switzerland, for example, has a very high proportion of guns per capita but it's very difficult to get one for the purpose of self defense. As far as the Swiss are concerned, you can have one to go target shooting at the range or hunting, or you can have one if you're a trained reservist in the armed forces, but carrying one around to defend yourself basically isn't allowed unless you can demonstrate that there's actually some kind of threat against you. The United States, on the other hand, doesn't have any kind of distinction about what firearms can or should be used for (well, apart from the well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state bit, but that seems to get ignored). With 90% of our population living in urban areas, we don't have much hunting to do and certainly don't have a strong hunting culture. We don't have army reservists taking guns home with them. We don't have much need to practice shooting at a target range either. With more liberal gun laws, we wouldn't be like Switzerland. We'd be more like the U.S.
You just got through saying that you've been handling firearms in a professional capacity for the last twenty years. Now, I don't know if you bring your work home with you to the extent that a threat still exists for you after you clock off for the day or whether you never really switch off from work and simply feel vulnerable without a firearm even though there's no reason to outside of a work context. Either way, people in your circumstances - trained and experienced - aren't really the issue. The problem is the guy who thinks that he lives in a dangerous neighborhood because someone down the street had a bicycle go missing from their front lawn two years ago, and that's why he needs a pistol sitting on the nightstand next to the Stilnox and the iPhone charger.
Interesting hypothesis. While we're conjecturing I'll have a go too: With more liberal gun laws, we wouldn't be like the US. We'd be more like the The Czech Republic.
FYI The states determine a lot of the firearm restrictions. I found the below on the ACT LDP's policy page None of that seems particularly controversial to me. If anything it's highly watered down and just minor tweaks toward more rights for current licence holders.
A stalker is trying to break into a woman's home and she calls 911. While police are on the way, she retreats to her bedroom, locks the door, and gets the handgun that a friend loaned her earlier that day. The man breaks into her house, makes his way to her bedroom, breaks in, and attacks her. The woman finally uses the handgun, shooting the attacker and killing him. All before the police can arrive. [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHSOJGNaq2M[/youtube] Consider what may have happened if she didn't have access to a handgun that day.
My apologies, I didn't realize anyone was interested in the data that's already been collected on this subject. The source is: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/
Thanks for the link - much appreciated. Unfortunately the study isn't quite accurate of the average American situation (unless most Americans are Unemployed, have prior arrests, and are either Black or Hispanic). The study mentions "Our control population was more unemployed than the target population of Philadelphians that it was to intended to represent." Some additional points of info that give better context to the 4.5x claim that "owning a firearm puts you in more danger": " ... At the time of shooting, case participants were also significantly more often involved with alcohol and drugs, outdoors, and closer to areas where more Blacks, Hispanics, and unemployed individuals resided. Case participants were also more likely to be located in areas with less income and more illicit drug trafficking" The study had 677participants (87.89% Black and 7.15% Hispanic) - not exactly a good sampling of the wider American community. 53.12% had prior arrests too - not exactly a good sampling of the wider American community. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/table/tbl1/
Guns don't kill people, proper sight alignment, sight picture , trigger control and follow through does.
https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&...ea0KXlRGKpk6_7Beg&sig2=Qi_cQxu5uqPFCIFwupnH7g My favourite, setting the scene, Yennus under no preasure on a range with no threat...... he is a big bad boy and ready to defend himself from intruders and protect his property. NO-ONE WILL MESS WITH HIM not even a paper target...... "I JUST F&CKING SHOT MYSELF"
I have an old compound bow (archery) in my garage, which I bought 2nd hand twenty years ago. I had done a little archery at school and enjoyed it, so when I saw this new-fangled bow in the window going for cheap, I thought I'd give it a go again. I bought a few arrows and set up a target at home. I pinned the paper target on a huge straw bale and put my steel wheel barrow behind it as a prop. It was around 60 metres away. My first shot was on target, so I trotted down the garden to retrieve my arrow, because a loud bang told me the arrow had passed through the bale and hit the barrow, so I thought it might be busted. When I got there, the arrow had in fact gone through the steel wheel barrow, too. Modern compound bows are more powerful and accurate.
It certainly would thin out the "freedumb" population lol. I like the young fella as well, "You are not as hard as me, you got no chains, no wifebeater. I'll bring my guns down there... BANG oh dude my mom is going to kill me" lol The last fella shooting bottles from 5 meters and going as slow as hell. Then he has a stoppage (a hangfire)....... what does he do? He looks down the barrel LOL, he looks down the goddamn barrell. That is where the thing that kills you comes out. The young fella with the AR15, he has a stoppage (which according to some people nearly never happens) he removes changes mags and before chambering a round he hits the bolt assist, there is no god damb round in the chamber..... why is he hitting the bolt assist on an empty chamber? (I realise 95% of you will not even know what that means but it is REALLY, REALLY stupid) Also he is hitting the bottom of the magazine, do you know what that does? It dislodges rounds from the mag and then you geta double feed (an obstrution in the chamber) a stoppage (which according to some people never happens) The thing is if you are that incompetant and you shot youself I would laugh and have no problem with it. The problem I have is you would probably shoot some poor bystander...... but to hell with them right.
Well according to the study presented previously, that would be highly unlikely. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/table/tbl1/ " ... At the time of shooting, case participants were also significantly more often involved with alcohol and drugs, outdoors, and closer to areas where more Blacks, Hispanics, and unemployed individuals resided. Case participants were also more likely to be located in areas with less income and more illicit drug trafficking" In fact, (even if I were Black, Hispanic, under the influence of drugs and alcohol, unemployed, and with a criminal record) there is a high possibility that I would hit someone else with a criminal record (not just some poor bystander). The problem I have is you would allow innocent people to get killed/injured by criminals just so you can have the illusion of safety... but to hell with them right?
