Best products from r/shitguncontrollerssay

Dear OP, since it seems you are honestly curious for discussion, I will provide a thorough and honest breakdown as to why Jim's presentation on gun control can be considered, at best, low-blow hyperbole and satire that is not constructive in the discussion of gun control in the USA.

0:00~1:30 - Jim states government mandates on guns have worked in Australia and acknowledges some general cultural differences in the US. Jim dismisses high profile shootings that have happened in Australia post mandate (granted it is not nearly as bad as what happens in the USA)

Pt.1, 1:30-5:00 - Jim states the only argument for having a gun is that one likes guns, that they increase risk of domestic tragedy, and are not a viable solution for home protection. In examining the possible (and very unique) benefits of having a gun, it's more than just simply "I like guns" (and I promise I will elaborate on that later). In regards to suicide, the USA is not a statistical leader; countries with stricter controls such as France, Japan and S.Korea have higher suicide rates. In regards to responsible storage, there are solutions that lock guns away from curious children while allowing quick access should they be required.

Pt.1, 5:00~6:45 - Jim mocks the suggestion that armed staff at schools could reduce the damage from school shooters, describing staff as lacking qualification or incentive. Some school districts have regular police officers to be security at schools, often carrying their duty weapons while fulfilling their regular duties.

Pt.1, 6:45~7:15 Jim reels it all back saying not everyone agrees with him, but this is just a stand-up routine, so don't get all wound up. Well, thanks Jim! It's not like gun control supporters are going to take you seriously and share this link on social media to make their case, compelling me to write a serious response to your admittedly not so serious comedy routine. But you do take this seriously, as the ratings for this video are disabled, and you delete any comments containing thoughtful and honest disagreement.

Pt.1, 7:15-7:45 Jim addresses those who disagree with him, saying they're upset because he has "good points." No you don't, you dishonest hyperbolic gaslighter. If good comedy is about making light about the hard truths of life, please do better with your facts next time.

Pt.2, 0:00~2:15 - Jim is right that the first amendment protects him as he criticizes other amendments, and that they are not sacred as they are amendments, after all. So, here's what it takes to change the constitution, specifically in regards to repealing the 2nd as other amendments have in the past. Easy!

Pt.2, 2:15~3:00 - Slavery strawman. Slavery is antithetical to the ideals of human rights and freedom. Firearms have unique qualities in promoting freedom (again, will get into that, I promise).

Pt.2, 3:00~4:00 - Jim says it's the negligent 1% that screws up what responsible people should be allowed to do. Generally, that is the case. Gun control in the USA, for the most part, has been expanding for the past 100 years, most of it failing due generally to a lack of enforcement.

Pt.2, 4:00~5:00 - Unfunny and unproductive sidestep into Descartes foundational philosophy; moving on.

Pt.2, 5:00~6:15 - Jim says guns are too easy to buy (and that they can be delivered, which is mostly false). Jim jokes at the idea of a black market, saying crazy people won't have as much access to them. This may be true, but like with the prohibition, this incentivizes organized crime. And with enough guns to arm every human in the USA, manufacturing capabilities such as machining and 3D printing, all of which has a better shelf life than moonshine, a black market is a very real possibility.
Muzzle loaded guns can be shipped through the mail

Pt.2, 6:15~7:50 Jim makes fun of the idea that a militia can resist a government force that is technologically superior. Funny enough, this is used as an argument for why either a) the power of the federal government be limited (legally and militaristically) or b) that militias should be allowed to own more than just rifles. Vietnam and Iraq prove that guerrilla militias can exhaust the US military. If the government does become tyrannical, they would need to break significant red tape to deploy the full capabilities of the US military on the homeland (see the Posse Comitatus Act, restricting such deployment). Militias would likely be lead by veterans to fight against what remains of the US military that can be deployed and has not defected over unconstitutional orders. A tyrannical government that would break through this red tape would effectively become delegitimized, fragmenting the US into civil war. As terrifying as this sounds, the 2nd Amendment helps ensure that an emerging dictatorship cannot easily exploit the resources and people of the union. The better armed a populous, the more expensive and exhausting it will be to keep them under the boot.

And before I go, I'd like to cash in on some identity politics because it often seems to be all the rage with those who support gun control. I'm a 2nd Gen immigrant to the USA, and my parents were refugees escaping a tyrannical regime. Their generation had to take up arms to buy time to escape. Those who were not so lucky were imprisoned, forced into labor and worked to death, buried in mass graves. I find it tragically ironic that gun control advocates are quite often the same people who would call Trump the 2nd Hitler, because if that is the case, then get ready to be the 2nd Warsaw Ghetto uprising. I understand there's a preference to more peaceful measures in making a more perfect union, and we should keep it that way. But if limited only to free expression and protest, change might not happen at all. Just ask the thousands of students who participated in the 1989 Tienanmen square protests. Oh wait, you can't.

If you made it this far, thanks for taking the time. If not, hey, I'll save this the next time someone shares this unproductive rambling from Jim as if it carried sound wisdom. **edit: formatting

Generic Stanley 18mm or my Gerber EAB Lite.

I got one of those assisted opening customized knives at a family event recently, and I've used it once or twice. Worked well.

I also have an old Xacto handle and no blade. I hear they're good for sharpening pencils.

And of course, I live in the UK, so I can't take any of 'em out in public. Except maybe the Xacto handle. And from what I hear, even that might get confiscated.

Found the book on amazon, looks like some people found this earlier.

I recommend this book. Without guns, the civil rights movement would have been impossible.

https://www.amazon.com/This-Nonviolent-Stuffll-Get-Killed/dp/082236123X

Like this?

HAZARD 4 RFL-BTAX-BLK Battle Axe Guitar-Shaped Padded Rifle Case, Black https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00DQG2ZHG/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_tai_-PrBDbJPWB6X5


Hazard 4 makes nice stuff....

Might be time for some fun!

Holy shit, look at that high capacity assault .22lr Ruger 10/22, that's easily converted to a machinegun

You are a gunfucker after all. Also nice basement, lol

This one's too easy.

The picture posted shows multiple things, including use of the terms "assault rifle" and "assault pistol," which aren't in question here, only the term "assault weapon."

While it does indeed showcase "The Gun Digest Book of Assault Weapons," that book was first published in 1986. The "Buyer's guide to Assault Weapons" also pictured was published in 2008.

In 1985, a year prior to any evidence presented that the pro-gun side ever used the term "assault weapons," Art Agnos of California introduced gun control addressing "assault firearms," but uttered this quote in support of the bill:

>"The only use for assault weapons is to shoot people"

Of course, inconvenient facts never stop gun control advocates.

[edit] words are hard