Fun fact: most good comedians are actually highly intelligent. It takes a lot of creativity, psychological insight and often knowledge to consistently make people laugh about stuff they didn’t necessary consider fertile ground for hilarity.
Thinking comedians are less informed than your average Republican congressclown from Rifle, Colorado or the 1st district of Texas says a lot about a person, none of it good.
Also, what numbers are you even talking about? Arrest statistics? Convictions? Things originating in Wayne LaPierre’s ass?
I agree many if most are smart. But smart means different things and does not mean anyone should take him seriously from a bit. So unless Jeff, is rattling off a statistic that even implies through a causational link, that shows any evidence of 40M irresponsible gun owners then I’m not sure I care about his comedy routine not that it would disprove my point in any way.
smart means different things and does not mean anyone should take him seriously from a bit.
They should when the bit itself is full of poignant arguments expertly refuting common myths. Which is exactly what he does in this very bit which you apparently refuse to even watch.
So unless Jeff
It’s Jim. Jeff is part of his surname. Big Trump saying “Chairman Un” vibes 😄
rattling off a statistic
For someone who’s yet to provide any to prove his assertion, you’re awfully preoccupied with statistics
evidence of 40M irresponsible gun owners
You know that some factual conditions can be inferred through reason, right? That’s what “Jeff Jimries” does in the bit you automatically dismiss.
I’m not sure I care about his comedy routine
Clearly. It has convincing counterarguments to the claims that you seem to think are somehow proven by many people having guns.
Do you think that the fact that almost everyone has shoes mean that the vast majority of people walk with a healthy posture?
not that it would disprove my point in any way.
Easy claim to make when your “point” is as hollow and unsupported as a bendy straw in a vacuum.
I’ve seen the bit. I agree with most of it. It’s entirely irrelevant. You are just trying to bring the entire gun debate to a small, limited scope statement.
How is it inferred, in this bit, that most gun owners are irresponsible. That has gone above my head.
They very deliberately said “think they are”, not “are”.
And they would be correct in both thinking they are, and actually being correct in their gun safety habits.
Nope. Most gunthusiasts aren’t anywhere near as responsible as they think they are.
This classic Jim Jeffries bit comes to mind, especially the part about the self defense pretense.
Oh, well if a comedian says so then the numbers MUST BE WRONG!
Fun fact: most good comedians are actually highly intelligent. It takes a lot of creativity, psychological insight and often knowledge to consistently make people laugh about stuff they didn’t necessary consider fertile ground for hilarity.
Thinking comedians are less informed than your average Republican congressclown from Rifle, Colorado or the 1st district of Texas says a lot about a person, none of it good.
Also, what numbers are you even talking about? Arrest statistics? Convictions? Things originating in Wayne LaPierre’s ass?
I agree many if most are smart. But smart means different things and does not mean anyone should take him seriously from a bit. So unless Jeff, is rattling off a statistic that even implies through a causational link, that shows any evidence of 40M irresponsible gun owners then I’m not sure I care about his comedy routine not that it would disprove my point in any way.
They should when the bit itself is full of poignant arguments expertly refuting common myths. Which is exactly what he does in this very bit which you apparently refuse to even watch.
It’s Jim. Jeff is part of his surname. Big Trump saying “Chairman Un” vibes 😄
For someone who’s yet to provide any to prove his assertion, you’re awfully preoccupied with statistics
You know that some factual conditions can be inferred through reason, right? That’s what “Jeff Jimries” does in the bit you automatically dismiss.
Clearly. It has convincing counterarguments to the claims that you seem to think are somehow proven by many people having guns.
Do you think that the fact that almost everyone has shoes mean that the vast majority of people walk with a healthy posture?
Easy claim to make when your “point” is as hollow and unsupported as a bendy straw in a vacuum.
I’ve seen the bit. I agree with most of it. It’s entirely irrelevant. You are just trying to bring the entire gun debate to a small, limited scope statement.
How is it inferred, in this bit, that most gun owners are irresponsible. That has gone above my head.