Australian comedian perfectly sums up why other countries think US gun laws are crazy

I don't know if it's ever been taken to court. In any event, automatic weapons weren't common arms at the time, so different rules could arguably be applied to them. Those same rules would be completely unacceptable for common firearms.

Read the instruction manual? Open it up and see how many chambers there are?

I explained shooting semi-auto gets the job done just fine. Machine guns waste bullets. Anyway so when was the last time a machine gun produced after 1934 was used in a deadly gun crime? How often does it happen? Actual by definition "machine guns" are owned generally by well-to-do collectors or gun enthusiasts to shoot for recreation in a safe, controlled invironment. If anyone could buy them (as easily as you can buy a hunting rifle for example) they still wouldn't
be used in many gun crimes. True, there are gangsters here in the US running around with fully automatic weapons but by and large most
gun crimes are committed with everyday pistols, shotguns, etc.

Jim Jefferies is fucking hilarious

WTF? You don't think knowing exactly what type of rounds you put in a hunting rifle is not relevant to safety?
I'm not even going to try to explain that to you. Google the subject is all I can say.

Knowing would be relevant. The way the question is asked there's no need to know to get the answer right, which is the case for pretty much all the rest of the questions as well so long as you keep in mind, while answering, that it's a safety quiz, so maybe you should choose the safety answer.

I thought the safe number of rounds was dependent on the hammer mechanism and not the actual number of chambers. Please educate me.

I think you're thinking of single action revolvers from the 19th Century, that were carried with the hammer down on an empty chamber for safety. These old guns let the firing pin rest directly on the cartridge, a situation where an unexpected jolt could fire the gun.

This isn't necessary for modern revolvers, which have mechanisms to eliminate the possibility of such an accidental discharge.

Buying a firearm should have the same restrictions that go along with buying a book.

Nah ... pretty much anything involving hand/eye coordination or fine muscle control is a non-starter.

I'm confused; you're saying these are off the market and none exist in grandad's footlocker?

I don't think a firing range test is practical. Besides, if we are trying to figure out who knows safe handling techniques, examiners might see a very short life expectancy. Nevertheless, this is a discussion among many, not just you and me, so why not talk about live firing tests? Maybe they make sense, maybe they don't, let's get the views and data on the table.

They still exist. But it would be pretty unreasonable to expect every gun buyer to know the idiosyncrasies of antique firearms designs.

It would be akin to asking on a driving test how many CFM of air the carburetor on a '67 Chevelle LS6 used. The vast, vast majority of drivers will never be in a situation where such knowledge (and an infinite amount of other similiar esoterica) would be necessary.

Fine. I've made my view plain. They're impractical and an unnecessary impediment for a gun buyer to exercise their rights.

As for their utility, I'll use an analogy: almost every driver who ever caused a traffic accident passed a driving test at some point. The driving test only (partially) answers the question "can you...?" and not the question "will you...?"

really? I think it's more like asking how to start a car with a manual choke (or even automatic choke). That's not unreasonable. Especially if your life depended on it.

Man those Colt revolvers are sweet. Classic, timeless design.
Anyway, about gun regulation: I'm up for the Pepsi Challenge! Let's make the standards to buy, own, and shoot a gun
in the US more stringent for a period of five years. Then evaluate the violent gun crime statistics for that same period.
If the violent gun crimes decrease, we keep the more stringent standards. If the violent gun crimes increase,
we keep things as they are. Any anti-gun folks willing to do this? Just askin'

Would you know how to crank start an old car? Think it should be on the driver's test?

You cannot demand every person buying a gun to be a "gun expert" as a prerequisite for exercising their rights. Sorry, that's just not going to fly.

Would you say you love Japan long time?

If I did now own and grow up around lots of two-cycle equipment and farming implements, I would have no idea how to start a vehicle with a manual choke because none of the vehicles I have ever owned had one. It would be like requiring someone born in 1995 to know how points and condensers or a 6V electrical system works.

Hi guys, I've appointed myself as a gun owner delegate to discuss the gives and takes of gun control. I'll start:

Hopefully that will change soon.

http://www.examiner.com/article/hea...ion-to-dismiss-machine-gun-case-set-for-april

Like a poll tax? Could sure keep some idiots from voting, right?

I don't even pay attention to the nutters anymore. I went belt fed years ago, and my friend is building lots of MG-42's, not that I care for them particularly. A single barrel can't support that rate of fire without more adequate cooling. Plus, almost everything we're using is about a hundred years out of date. Pistols should use computer controlled targeting, which is easy, and they should extract cartridges backwards from the magazine because it reduces the parts count from a Browning while increasing the barrel length. But rifles are pretty easy to obsolete anyway with input from millimeter wave radar, which is a stumbling block for deployment of a personal anti-bullet system for field use instead of fixed installations.

No, im not giving up my slaves, I'm a responsible slave owner.

A day and a half thread and already at five pages, full of the usual rhetoric. The OP's video raises the very same question I always do in this threads, namely that it's not gun ownership per se that is the problem, it's the cultural attitude in America towards them. In ever one of these threads I participate in I make the same point and it gets ignored. Same as has now happened with the video.

I've got news for you pro-gun people who refuse to have a discussion. You are the problem. You are cowards for running away from the debate, a debate that you know needs addressing and you know there are reasonable questions over. You hear all kinds of arguments, from those who are anti-gun, to those who support gun ownership but feel that regulation is necessary, to those who see it as societies problem and even the incredulity of non-Americans to the arguments you advance (many from gun ownership permitting countries). The response to any of this is the same, fingers in the ear and spout out the same theoretical shite, most often in the form of a cringeworthy, chest beating "it's my riiiighhhht!!!" as if that means anything, and thereafter to play strawman and assume that anyone who raises questions must be a anti-gun or pro-regulation by default.

You know, not all rights are absolute. Gun ownership is and must always be a qualified right due to the nature of the item. It is also not a human right to own a gun. It is a legal right enshrined in law, and that can therefore be changed (and is, again, why it's a qualified right, not an absolute one). It's basic common sense that this is not something that is beyond debate. Until, therefore, the rhetoric and tired old lines stop being trotted out and such people come to the table for intelligent debate, America has no chance of properly addressing the cultural attitudes that keep it from making progress on issues such as the prevention/reduction of gun rampages and other offense based gun crimes.

Nope. Fuck you. Feel high and mighty or whatever, but fuck you.

That's your discussion on gun rights. Don't like it? Fuck you. Fuck the comedian. Fuck all the things. See you in court. Tired of it.

And here is the proof in the pudding.

Yes I do feel high and mighty compared to intellectual weaklings who run away instead of having the bollocks to face the tough debates.

Fuck you.

Pretty liberating to disregard the gun control nutters as the sohpists that they are and take your rights back via the rule of law.

OK, I'm having a temporary moment of weakness. So let's compromise then...

Abolish background checks and the record keeping of all firearm purchases.

Allow felons who have dutifully served their time and are free and clear of the court system the right to own firearms again.

Abolish the requirement to apply for a license to carry a firearm, concealed or not, in public.

Abolish the law that prevents new machine gun manufacture for sale to the general public.

Here's my compromise. You gun control guys can pick one of the above. I'll allow the rest to remain as they are.









For now.

Which gun control guys?

Hmmm, that one there.