Jim Jefferies -- Gun Control (Part 1) from BARE -- Netflix Special

Whenever I hear that brought up as an argument, I recommend listening to what Jim Jefferies had to say about gun control. Despite Jim Jefferies being a comedian and phrasing his arguments in a comical, comedic way, I've yet to see anyone give a convincing counter-argument, especially to the "you're bringing a gun to a drone fight" part. Jim Jefferies on Gun Control, part 1: ▶ this video Jim Jefferies on Gun Control, part 2: [link]

in “Google maps shows location of San Bruno shooting” · View on HN

Round and round we go... As a foreigner, it's appalling to see every excuse imaginable trotted out every time this happens. Don't think you're fooling anyone. You're just making things up on the spot for the sake of pretending to have a rational argument, like an intelligent adult would in your place. But I will eat my shorts if you personally have spent even an hour doing the research before making statements about "what this would do", or "that wouldn't work", or whatever. I don't mean clicking "like" on a Facebook post by a fellow NRA member. Mean literally reading through scientific publications, or looking at statistics published by third parties that are unaffiliated with any United States organisation. Or just Googling to see what the other 96% of the human race does with guns and laws. ""No Way to Prevent This", Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens": [link] Jim Jefferies (an Australian comedian living in the States) on gun control: Part #1: ▶ this video Part #2: [link] Can you counter every single one of his points ? Really? With facts ? That you can link to in a scientific paper that wasn't paid for by a gun lobby in the states? 19 children just died. Please take this a tiny bit seriously and don't just click the reply link to blurt out something in a public forum that can be trivially shown to be false...

in “Mental illness, mass shootings, and the politics of American firearms (2015)” · View on HN

No worries :) > seems a bit disingenuous to highlight suicide, while at the same time not including injury, rape, or loss of property that result from home invasions. Nothing disingenuous about it. In fact, statistically speaking, the situation is even worse. Introducing a gun into an already violent encounter significantly increases the risk of injury and death. There is tonnes of evidence to support this. Here is one, very specific study that indirectly confirms exactly this. [link] And here's another fascinating study PREDICTORS OF FIREARM USE AND EFFECTS OF WEAPONRY ON VICTIM INJURY IN VIOLENT CRIME [link] It's a long read, but well worth it if you are really interested in what the literature has to say about the often surprising ways in which guns affect the outcomes of violent crime. And finally here's a pretty honest take on the matter from a comedian. NSFW for language ▶ this video The humor may not be to your taste, but the points made are fair

in “Ask HN: Have you done / plan to do any basic “prepping” (tinned food etc)” · View on HN

> "decide what I want first and rationalize it later" Incidentally, this is Jim Jefferies point[1] about guns: guns are fun, people enjoy having them and shooting, so they rationalize with evil governements threats from centuries ago. [1]: ▶ this video

in “The Next Front in the New Crypto Wars: WhatsApp” · View on HN

Yeah, I feel like you could just rephrase Jim Jefferie's classic comment on gun control[0] and replace this entire blog post with "fuck off, I like Rust". [0] ▶ this video

in “We're choosing Rust, and not Go, C++, or Node.js” · View on HN