I've heard him bitch on shows about how he does "O&A" every possible time he can and their fans still give him shit about not being on enough. Maybe when he comes around again he might do TACS. Who knows ?

He'd be way more fun on tacs because he can drink and won't have a hole babbling over him

I'm not sure he drinks anymore. Did he not stop when he got a woman and a kid?

But yeah, if he did it would be great. I remember a show where he had been up all night for saint Patrick's day and Saggy Tits wouldn't even let him have a Bud. The man was going dry, which is a game over kinda situation.

He could bring his kid along. So Ant's girlfriend can have a someone to play with.

When he announced the baby's name on OnA: "Hank Jefferies. That sounds like a guy with a big dick who can fix things."

All those YouTube videos with Jim Jefferies are the reason I became a fan of O&A

I feel like jim jefferies could do a week at the compoumd and it wouldn't be enough

I would love to see him on TACS!

He's bigger than both and especially bigger than TACS. Not going to happen.

No he's not. I love Jim but he really isn't that big of a comedian.

Not to mention his show was cancelled, which kind of sucks. Even though I think his position on guns is shit that dude is funny as fuck.

Ok shelby

Listen to some of his Jay Mohr Podcast appearances. I normally hate Jay, but one of the times he had Jefferies on he just let Jim talk about his life and it was the fastest hour or two ever. Mr Jefferies has had a fucked up life. Stories about his dad digging a house into a cave and his obese mom getting stuck in a boat, that sort of shit.

And you can't blame him for repeating stories really, on a youtube playlist you watch the appearances one after another, but in reality some of the appearances were months apart and it's likely noone could remember what stories he had already told, Jim included.

His 2014 comedy special "bare" was hilarious. Would be good to hear from Jim again.

I don't think Jefferies and Ant have anything in common past the bottom of their bottles and being very funny. Would love to see him on TACS as well, really liked his show even with the shitty "guns suck" series finale.

His last special he did an anti gun thing. Mysteriously he hasn't appeared since. Forget about ants political talk show.

He is on my shitlist of liberal faggots because of that antigun political rant wrapped up as a joke.

I love the Jim Jeffries, but he has some pretty stupid ideas about Amerikkkan gun laws.

So do you.

Well he's from 2 different countries that have strict gun control and almost 0 gun murders per year so it's probably hard for him to understand why Americans are so crazed about guns.

But there are 10 times the number of murders involving concrete dildos in those countries.

They aren't almost 0 per year and you can never stop people from a) getting guns in prohibited areas and b) wanting to kill other people with any available tools, down to a knuckle.

The USA isn't even in the top 100 countries for intentional homicides.

I meant gun deaths per capita per year.. not per year. That was a mistake.

And I would hope the US isn't in the top 100 countries (although I'm not sure if you are talking about homicides strictly by guns or any homicide and accidental shootings are also worth noting and you seem to be leaving those out for sure). We have an active government and law enforcement. We aren't Somalia or Honduras. We do, however, have the most gun deaths of all the 27 most developed countries in the world (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2013/09/19/u-s-has-more-guns-and-gun-deaths-than-any-other-country-study-finds/).

I know people are always going to want to kill other people but you're gonna have a hard time killing 15 or 20 people with a knife or pipe before somebody stops you (and I know mass shootings don't account for the majority of gun deaths). I'm not for taking guns away from people but I don't think it's crazy to have limits on ammo and universal background checks and waiting periods. You have to be a psycho to think that stuff is in some way infringing on your 2nd ammendment right. Unless you think that you're gonna wake up one morning to Red Dawn and have North Korean or Russian soldiers parachuting down into your neighborhood, stricter regulations aren't an issue.

The main point of my initial post was to say that I understand why to Jim Jefferies it seems weird that Americans are so dead-set on having the most guns.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2012/12/14/china-school-stabbings/1770395/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/09/pa-school-stabbings/7498911/

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill

And I like how you said we have the most - we would have a high number based on a very small percentage of 300 million people.

Yeah... Those school stabbings kinda makes my point for me. You have a bunch of kids injured instead of a bunch of kids dead like at Sandy Hook or Columbine or In the Aurora Theatre. Crazy people with knives aren't as deadly as crazy people with guns. You will definitely still have crazy people... but they won't be able to murder as many people in a short amount of time. And aside from that.. knives serve a purpose outside of killing. Guns are made with the express purpose of killing. You really can't compare regulations on knives and guns because of that.

That drill really doesn't have anything to do with anything.. I'm not sure the point behind that post. Are you trying to say that knives are somehow deadlier?

Knives are deadlier in many circumstances, and can kill people silently with ease, which makes them deadly.

Knives might be handier you are a spy and need to sneak up behind someone and slit his throat without the other guards hearing. However if you are going to go on a rampage you are gonna want to have a gun over a knife. That's why the expression is "don't bring a knife to a gun fight."

Again, yes you can kill someone with a knife. You can also kill someone with a piano cord. That is besides the point though because you don't make regulations for a gun based on how deadly knives are.

It is a lot harder and more specific to kill someone with a piano cord than to stab them in the stomach, chest, neck, or head once or a few more times. You don't live in reality if you think that people who've gone to jail for knife assaults were all doing sneak up Sam Fisher spy kills.

No but I also don't think people are going to choose a knife over a gun if they want to murder someone the easiest way possible. If you can't get your hands on a gun you use a knife. If you have a gun you'll use that. But, again, that has nothing to do with the argument I'm making. Knives being used for murder doesn't mean that guns can't be regulated. It doesn't make any sense. If you think knives are such an efficient killing tool you should be fine with guns being taken away all together because then you'll just use your knives since they are so effective.

Of those top 100 countries with the intentional homicides, they have more gun control on average than D.C.. You're making things up now and letting your hoplophobia take over.

What the hell did I make up? You are trying to say knives kill people therefor guns can't be regulated. That doesn't make any sense. They are mutually exclusive. You are using knife murders to defend guns somehow.

No I'm not just using those instances of knife rampages and murders, I'm using the reality that in all countries around the world you can and will be able to buy guns legally or not, or make them, and that only people who play by the rules are affected by gun control.

You live in a fantasy world where everyone follows the law and wants to do good.

But what about people who aren't criminals until their first murder? James Holmes wasn't a criminal until his first mass shooting. He followed all of the laws and wound up killing people. It isn't like the only people who shoot people are criminals.

So did Elliot Rodgers. The point is that you can't control people besides physically doing so, and that guns will only stay out of a gun free zone by the good will of a person. It's just a sign to be followed or ignored at your peril.

Again you don't live in reality - you think gun control stops criminals from acquiring guns or making them.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/04/04/australian-motorcycle-gang-diy-firearms-surface/

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khyber_Pass_Copy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-ihbzNFoM0

http://thechive.com/2012/12/06/apparently-you-can-make-an-ak-47-out-of-just-about-anything-25-photos/

http://www.ammoland.com/2014/03/gun-banning-california-senator-busted-selling-illegal-guns-to-fbi-agent/

http://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-CJB-10183

I don't think gun control stops criminals from getting guns (I also don't think gun control means that everybody has their guns taken away which seems to be your starting point for some reason). But I also don't think most people who murder in the heat of the moment intend on being criminals. I don't think Adam Lanza planned on killing people for years. I don't think the Columbine shooters intended on murdering people ten years before they did. I don't think the Fort Hood shooter intended in murdering people for years. Not everyone that kills is a lifelong criminal.

Hahaha you're a lunatic.

How am I a lunatic? You think that gun control means "everyone loses all their guns." That is not even what I'm talking about. And do you think everyone that kills somebody with a gun is a career criminal? Or do you think maybe somebody with a gun might be a law abiding citizen and then gets into a fight with his wife and winds up shooting her? You think that ever happened? You are using a bunch of terrible arguments that have nothing to do with what I'm saying. Gun control does not mean everyone turns their guns in.

My point was that a) you can't stop anyone from acquiring a gun legally, illegally, or making one, b) the police have no duty to protect you, and c) gun control is something that only good people follow, people who wouldn't be breaking the law to kill someone else in the first place, and if they are sleeper psychos you can't predict, then do the best you can to survive every day thinking that anyone next to you with a bulge under their shirt around is a concealed carrier about to snap.

Yeah... Those school stabbings kinda makes my point for me. You have a bunch of kids injured instead of a bunch of kids dead like at Sandy Hook or Columbine or In the Aurora Theatre. Crazy people with knives aren't as deadly as crazy people with guns. You will definitely still have crazy people... but they won't be able to murder as many people in a short amount of time.

That drill really doesn't have anything to do with anything.. I'm not sure the point behind that post. Are you trying to say that knives are somehow deadlier?

In those cases it's lucky there were survivors. Elliot Rodgers killed three people in his room with a knife before going on the Santa Barbara rampage.

Also, Rodgers passed CA background checks and had police visits for crazy behavior - you aren't going to stop crazy people from having guns, and you're naive to think you can with gun control.

Guns end up in prisons for example.

You also ignored what the 21 foot rule is, conveniently. You are just more afraid of guns than knives is all.

Right... but how is that good news for guns? How does people dying by a knife make guns less deadly?

Do you go after swimming pools, cars, or blunt objects as killing objects?

How is it good news for guns? Guns exist in perpetuity and can be easily made or illegally acquired despite you thinking criminals buy their guns with a 4473 at the store all the time. Realizing that bad people can always get guns should convince any rational person that gun control is about stopping people from defending themselves against criminals/threats, especially when the police have no legal duty to protect anyone (Castle Rock v. Gonzales and D.C. v. Warren).

I don't go after guns or swimming pools or cars... I'm not going after anything.

However... cars and swimming pools have purpopses outside of killing. You don't seem to understand the difference. There is a HUGE difference between gun control and stripping people of their guns. There is a lot of wiggle room between "nobody should have guns" and "Everybody should be able to own a tank." The NRA tells people that Obama is coming for their guns because it is a good money raising technique for them. People send money to the NRA and run to the store and stock up on guns and ammo and then Congress doesn't do shit because pretty much everyone in Congress is paid by the NRA. I don't know how people still fall for the "they're coming for your guns!" line. They've been using that shit since the inception of the NRA.

You don't want to mention that the Aurora theater and these schools were gun free zones do you?

Or that the Newtown district adopted the NRA plan to have armed guards in their schools right after Sandy Hook?

Where do you see that I'm saying that there shouldn't be armed guards anywhere? Armed guards are a good thing. You are arguing points that I'm not even making. And the fact that they were gun free zones is fine but Fort Hood wasn't a gun free zone and Columbine wasn't a gun free zone and the Washington Navy Yard wasn't a gun free zone.

Fort Hood wasn't a gun free zone and Columbine wasn't a gun free zone and the Washington Navy Yard wasn't a gun free zone.

This shows how stupid and clueless you are.

Bonus trivia: Columbine happened during the federal assault weapon ban. Didn't stop them though.

How does that show how clueless I am? Columbine had an armed guard. Fort Hood was guarded and the Washington Navy Yard was also guarded although people did initially try to say that was a gun free zone before that was roundly debunked.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/09/17/the-growing-myth-of-mass-shootings-and-gun-free/195927

Gun free zones are those that prohibit people, employees/patrons/whomever, from carrying private firearms. Military bases prohibit troops from carrying guns but for the few guards and MPs, yet military bases still are as vulnerable to rampages as schools without enough armed people present to be there and respond in time.

Police are not plentiful enough to be everywhere and they owe you no legal duty to protect you or go in harm's way for you. You want to live somewhere where police are omnipresent and controlling everyone, which brings a host of cost/taxation issues on its own, besides the privacy issues, and I just want people to go about their days as they do but with a choice to defend themselves as well as people with bad intent will always be able to.

Again, no I don't. You are making arguments against shit I'm not saying. You do undestand that gun control does not mean taking away everyones guns, right? Why do you insist on arguing that I want guns taken away? You seem to be just saying NRA talking points and ignoring the distinction between regulations and a gun ban... And how come when you go to a gun show you can't bring a loaded weapon in with you? Does that make it a gun free zone then? There are guns there but you can't be armed.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/09/17/the-growing-myth-of-mass-shootings-and-gun-free/195927

You can absolutely bring loaded weapons with you, just not the ones you plan to sell. If you think that at least half the people at a gun shows aren't concealing loaded guns legally or not you're delusional. I know because I go to them. But there are no special anti carrying policies at gun shows.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/nra-loaded-guns-okay-schools-not-gun-shows

http://www.commongunsense.com/2011/02/why-gun-shows-dont-allow-loaded-guns.html

Guns are advised to be unloaded/unable to be used. At bigger gun shows this is a requirement and some flat out ban loaded guns all together. You are not allowed to bring in a loaded gun. Why is this? Because there have been accidental discharges at gun shows by people who have brought concealed loaded guns into the gun shows. Who is it that suggested these rules? The director of the NRA.

You didn't read the first article or the limp wristed blog post that mischaracterized it after; they're talking about guns for sale at shows, not your personal protection guns, and how people are required to put zip ties on the action to show they're not loaded.

Do you think you're the first antigun person who has said these things to me?

It makes sense if you've ever been to a gun show that when there are 20 rifles lying on a table with people walking in front and behind them all day that nobody needs to ask or check if the guns are loaded. At a shooting range this isn't the case since all guns point in one direction and nobody walks in that direction.

You're a typical antigunner. Read the four rules of firearm safety and figure out why gun shows have this policy for guns being handled by hundreds of random people a day.

I'm not fuckin anti-gun. I am a gun owner. I'm just not a zealot and I understand that not having a 100 round clip isn't the end of my rights. Anyone who is too actively excited about anything (even guns) is a lunatic. If you think that having universal background checks and limiting clip/mag sizes is a gun grab you are crazy. That shit is why the rest of the world thinks we are a bunch of hillbilly psychos.

Oh you're a Fudd, pardon me.

No I'm just reasonable and don't spend all day worrying about Obama coming for my guns. Not every gun owner spends all day and night thinking about guns. Some of us understand regulations. I consider myself a good driver and I'd love to go 100mph everywhere but I understand that not everyone is a great driver and it might be unsafe so I'm ok with speed limits and I follow them for the most part. It's a pain in my ass sometimes but it's a part of being a member of a society that looks out for the greater good. I look at gun regulations the same way.

Again, you think that gun control causes lower crime. You don't want to look at the most gun owning places in America and see how safe they are compared to gun banned, Democrat controlled cities. It has nothing to do with Obama, he's a puppet and a distraction, like your analogy to 100mph. It's not a right to drive and cars are a lot more dangerous to operate than guns, both to the occupants and to the public, with much more catastrophic accidents from slight misuses. You again want to be this noble citizen but you aren't going after the major causes of death in America, and it isn't gun accidents or even gun homicides, the vast majority of which are caused by minority gang members. I'm not white, so don't give me any shit about that being a white perspective - it's realistic and verified.

I don't think gun control leads to lower crime. I think it leads to lower rates of gun-caused death as has been proven by Australia and England and Japan, etc. And again.. I'm not talking about banning guns. I don't care if you own 500 guns. You keep bringing it back to gun bans and I don't want gun bans. There is a difference between regulations and gun bans. Not every regulation is a fuckin ban. Limiting clip sizes and universal background checks and mandatory gun safety training would not ban anyone from owning a gun.. it would make the owners more responsible and better vetted.

And as far as rights... of course driving isn't a constitutional right because there were no cars back then. And again, the main purpose of a car isn't to kill. The main purpose of a gun is to kill. Heart attacks are a major cause of death and I think people should eat better. That is neither here nor there. I am talking about gun regulations. I only used the car analogy to explain how speed limits were instituted for public safety the same way gun regulations are instituted.

Gun related deaths but deaths still happen and in more numbers elsewhere, evidenced by international homicide rates compared and suicide rates compared. Japan for example.

No the main purpose of a gun isn't to kill, Elmer, they're machines designed to reliable fire certain projectiles. At no manufacturing plant do they test a gun by killing someone with it; they test its ability to reliably chamber the explosion and the gun's safety features, and I myself have fired 40K rounds without killing anyone. You're a hoplophobe, it's ok.

No.. Guns are made to kill. That is what they were invented for. They weren't invented to shoot at paper. They weren't invented to just fire projectiles with no express purpose. They were invented to kill the enemy. Now you are just getting ridiculous if you are trying to say that their purpose isn't to kill. Sure you can shoot clay pigeons but that isn't what they were invented for/designed to do. Stop being so god damn disingenuous. You can use a gun to stir your fuckin tea if you want to but that isn't what they were invented for. You can't say you need guns for protection and then also say that they aren't made for killing. You look like an asshole. And I wouldn't be a gun owner if I was afraid of guns but I'm starting to get afraid of you owning a gun if you really don't know what they were made for....

They are designed to fire the projectile, and they don't kill anything they touch, how you use the projectile can be target shooting, hunting, or defensive purposes intended to stop someone with less than lethal loads.

Baseball bats aren't designed to kill yet blunt objects kill more Americans every year than rifles do. Cars aren't designed to kill either but they've been used for that purpose. You're afraid of guns and are focusing on something that has millions more positive uses a year than negative uses, and, something that has a general use for good rather than bad.

I'm not saying they are designed to kill only in commission of murder. I understand that they can be used to kill in self defense or hunting. But to say they aren't designed to kill is retarded. That is exactly what they are made to do.

They are "made" to reliably fire certain projectiles. They are used in one way to fire a projectile in an attempt to kill someone with it, and have different purposes; a .22 isn't going to have the same purpose as a .416 Barrett, for example.

Right.... but guns were invented by the Chinese as war machines to kill with. You might hunt a squirrel with a .22 but that is still with the intent to kill. That is what they are for. Trying to act like that isn't what guns were made to do isn't assisting a case against gun regulations. It's just silly. Why would you be against universal background checks and clip size regulations and mandatory safety training?

UBC.- because you can never control every private transaction between friends, families, or criminals who want to stay off the record, and I don't think you should discourage people from being able to meet in public places to buy and sell guns from each other if the main factor is a check, as these are just pieces of metal and plastic that can be easily assembled, made, and smuggled in private.

You need to stop thinking that everyone follows the law and loves it.

Clip size - a) it's not a clip, b) they're just metal and plastic boxes that you can make of any size with rudimentary tools and readily available materials. All you're doing is letting criminals have bigger magazines than a law abiding citizen.

Well then why aren't all of these guns being smuggled and made in England and Australia and Japan? Sure there are some gun killings but less than 1 per 100,000 people. People in England and Australia and Japan follow the law but Americans are unique in that they simply don't? Those countries are full of gun-free zones.. you'd think gangs would be murdering people nonstop.

And the idea that we can't stop them all so we might as well not even try to do anything is ridiculous. We are one of the most advanced countries in the world yet we are the worst when it comes to gun deaths (of the 27 most modernized countries), and one of the worst when it comes to education. It seems like we have a correlation between lots of guns and lots of dumb people leading to lots of gun deaths. Mandatory safety training could at least help cut back on accidental gun deaths. Why would that be a bad thing?

I already linked you the article about Australian biker gangs making their guns after the ban. Now you can 3D print guns as well. In California we had a senator writing gun control bills with one hand while he sold actual machine guns to SF gangs and a branch of Al Qaeda in Indonesia.

All the countries with higher homicide rates than us have stricter gun control laws. Of the "civilized countries" that you want to use as examples, crime is rampant without guns as knives give you a significant force advantage in those gunless environments; look at the Charlie Hebdo attackers being filmed, in Texas you'd be seeing it from a gopro attached to an AR that's lighting them up on the spot.

"Mandatory safety training" you think that these accidents happen the first time these people touch a gun; it happens well after they learn how to use one, in a moment of carelessness, and they're extremely rare. You also think you can force people to do this, which is silly.

Gun control has failed in the US and worldwide. You will only ever be able to rid law abiding people of guns, but you can never stop the invention from existing or people finding ways to buy guns off record, or make them.

Obviously I'm going to use modernized countries because that is who we are compared to. You can't compare America to Honduras. We also have faster internet than Honduras but they don't have shit. And I know you sent that article but those homemade Aussie guns haven't translated into many gun deaths.

And the way you'd enforce gun safety training is gun buyers would be required to take a safety training class before they can buy a gun. Obviously current gun owners wouldn't have to do it unless they plan on buying another gun (There could also be a stipulation in there where if you've been a gun owner for 10+ years without incident you are exempt from any training). Making it mandatory for new gun purchases, however, would be enforceable as you would simply not be able to buy a gun without the class. You'd get a certificate or some horseshit that you'd have to bring with you when you buy the gun and if a gun store sold you a gun without you presenting the certificate they would be heavily fined (similar to bars serving beers to kids with a fake ID). Sure, sometimes they'd get away with it but the possibility of being fined or shut down would most likely deter gun store owners from risking it.

And Houston has an extremely high crime right despite being a high gun ownership area. The idea that having guns automatically makes an area safe isn't necessarily true. In Houston you have a 1 in 13 chance of being victim of a violent crime (according to stats). So the Charlie Hebdo attackers may have fit right in in parts of Houston without being stopped since apparently criminals commit violent crimes there pretty damn often without legal-gun-owner interference.

http://www.areavibes.com/houston-tx/crime/

Also guns are tools, used as industrial shotguns or affixing a muzzle to your 1911 that lets you snag a fence wire and shoot it clean through.

I live in Australia and there are gun murders in a ridiculously high rate considering we supposedly got rid of all the guns.

http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Screen-Shot-2013-12-17-at-Tuesday-December-17-11.35-AM.png

That breaks down gun murders per capita. Australia is 17th least in the world. America is 46th least in the world. Australia is waaaay better off as far as gun murders per capita goes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Australia: 0.86 gun deaths per 100,000 people per year

England: 0.25 gun deaths per 100,000 people per year

America: 10.3 gun deaths per 100,000 people per year

I'm not sure which standard you are measuring by with your "ridiculously high" rate of gun murders. If you are counting by actual number of people killed by guns it is a ridiculously low number.

I appreciate the fact that you're using statistics, but considering our gun laws that IS a ridiculously high rate. Not to mention there's a shooting a couple of towns over from where I live at least once a fortnight, it has nothing to do with my argument I just find it ridiculous that so many guns are being used yet we banned most of them. I'm personally pro guns, just strict testing.

I'm just saying less than one shooting death per 100,000 people is actually very low. It's almost 0. Gun laws obviously won't make the number 0 but it proves that with strict regulations you can get the number down to almost 0. America uses the argument that stricter gun laws wouldn't help. There are countries, like Australia, that seem (statistically at least) to prove that strict gun laws can actually drastically reduce gun killings. Now the question is "what are you willing to give up to save more lives?" America is just unique in that a lot of people here are absolutely craze about guns. I own guns and I don't think guns should be taken away but I'm not a nutcase and I understand why maybe I don't need a 100 round extended clip for an assault rifle. Anyone who is overly-enthusiastic about anything is a weirdo.

two times: I can't stand anybody with a southern or Australian accent. Goes through me like a knife to the spine.

I feel the same way about your comments.

I can't stand anybody with a southern or Australian accent. Goes through me like a knife to the spine.

I appreciate the fact that you're using statistics, but considering our gun laws that IS a ridiculously high rate. Not to mention there's a shooting a couple of towns over from where I live at least once a fortnight, it has nothing to do with my argument I just find it ridiculous that so many guns are being used yet we banned most of them. I'm personally pro guns, just strict testing.

Right... but how is that good news for guns? How does people dying by a knife make guns less deadly?

I don't think gun control leads to lower crime. I think it leads to lower rates of gun-caused death as has been proven by Australia and England and Japan, etc. And again.. I'm not talking about banning guns. I don't care if you own 500 guns. You keep bringing it back to gun bans and I don't want gun bans. There is a difference between regulations and gun bans. Not every regulation is a fuckin ban. Limiting clip sizes and universal background checks and mandatory gun safety training would not ban anyone from owning a gun.. it would make the owners more responsible and better vetted.

And as far as rights... of course driving isn't a constitutional right because there were no cars back then. And again, the main purpose of a car isn't to kill. The main purpose of a gun is to kill. Heart attacks are a major cause of death and I think people should eat better. That is neither here nor there. I am talking about gun regulations. I only used the car analogy to explain how speed limits were instituted for public safety the same way gun regulations are instituted.

No.. Guns are made to kill. That is what they were invented for. They weren't invented to shoot at paper. They weren't invented to just fire projectiles with no express purpose. They were invented to kill the enemy. Now you are just getting ridiculous if you are trying to say that their purpose isn't to kill. Sure you can shoot clay pigeons but that isn't what they were invented for/designed to do. Stop being so god damn disingenuous. You can use a gun to stir your fuckin tea if you want to but that isn't what they were invented for. You can't say you need guns for protection and then also say that they aren't made for killing. You look like an asshole. And I wouldn't be a gun owner if I was afraid of guns but I'm starting to get afraid of you owning a gun if you really don't know what they were made for....