Australian comedian Jim Jefferies on guns and gun control


Onya mate!


The system works!


It sounds like you don’t know I store my children at the credit union…


That’s a fair criticism of my post. It was very off the cuff, and inconsistent. However, he’s still wrong on the ubiquitous impact of gun control in Australia. There were few mass shootings before Port Arthur as well.

To my other point: If there was a post entitled “Australian comedian Jim Jeffries on women,” with clips form the VERY SAME special, my suspicion is that the BB audience would be having a far, far different response.

As far as implied credentialism based on my “new account,” congrats, you’re on to me. I couldn’t be bothered to look up previous credentials, so I linked a gmail account via oauth. I’m a total n00b.


So 35 is the limit for a mass shooting to achieve gun control? The 27 dead in Newton was enough for me, but here we are, three years later with five mass shootings of our own. If only that guy had gotten eight more we’d probably have something sensible in place regarding restrictions. Oh well.

I guess 19 years and two shootings is a much worse ratio, great point.


…wait, are women a lethal and controversial weapon that need to be regulated let someone kill themselves by accident by playing with a loaded woman?


Maybe a bit of a stretch…

That’s actually a pretty good point he has there IMO.

How about…

Hmm, not quite misogynistic, I reckon…

What about this one…

Um, well… I guess maybe you could have a point there.

However, that’s an ad hominem argument next to his crushing points in the OP.


Nothing makes me feel safer at night than a loaded gun at face level while I sleep.


Oh no, once someone says anything disagreeable all of their previous talking points are therefore instantly negated. Well known fact.


Nobody can make me dislike Jim Jefferies.

Can’t be done.


Let’s take a look at the same document linked above, shall we? In the 20 years before the Port Arthur massacre in 1996 there are eight mass murders listed. Every one is a shooting and the total number of deaths is 47. In the roughly same period following Port Arthur, the article records two shootings, resulting in 5 deaths. I’m not a statistician, but the evidence seems to support Jeffries’ take on things a lot more than it does yours.


That’s a great idea, but what if the wife and I want to play a game on a Sunday when the credit union is closed?

It’s just not as fun when she is just trying to pelt me with some crab apples.


That reminds me of a rule that can be hard to remember: Never play games while drunk that you make up while drunk.


Dumb, if guns aren’t for protection than why do police have them? If guns aren’t for protection than why do criminals use them in acts of crime?

And remember police don’t conduct offensive operations with guns, that’s legally a military function.


Planet from which you are?





I’m pretty sure he was killed by a gun… wielded by his wife to be sure, but a gun none the less.


Should I have highlighted “loaded”?


Would it be possible…wait for it…to agree with someone’s views on one topic, and then…ohmygodohmygodohmygod…disagree, with that same person, on another topic?