John Oliver investigates Gun Control in Australia

Hey, I have the right to mow down Kindergartners with my AR-15 if I want to! [/nutjob logic]

Please don't characterize all of us by the actions of our idiotic brethren on the "GUNS FOR ALL" side of things :P
 
Well, to be fair, it is a legal right here, which I don't think can be said 'bout anywhere else.
 
What you fail to see is that we in the US have an entirely different history than the rest of the former (and not so former) British Empire/Commonwealth - we had the nuts to revolt against the Crown and take control of our own destiny. :P

I saw that video and it is pretty hysterical.

But look at Canada where the general population has literally been disarmed - they had a mass shooting in Moncton, New Brunswick the other day.

Also, look at US cities like Chicago which has the stiffest anti-gun laws in the world (and I mean that literally) - it's the murder capital by gunfire for the US, and has a gun violence rate higher than Baghdad, Iraq. Think about it.

Look at it logically - some criminal kills someone with a gun and somehow taking guns away from law abiding citizens will prevent this? It only leaves law abiding citizens defenseless.

One of the primary rights any human has is the right to defend one's self. Denying law abiding citizens of that right only makes them unarmed victims of criminals who will always find guns.

Hundreds of millions of lawfully owned guns in America don't kill anyone every day.

Again, it's a complicated constitutional issue that has to do with our history in the US. We don't trust the government (and for very good reasons). Our Declaration of Independence and Constitution preserve the rights of the citizenry to 'alter or abolish' any government that becomes oppressive or destructive to our 'natural rights' as human beings.

In the US we are Citizens, not Subjects. And it is a well known fact that dictators and tyrants always prefer unarmed subjects/peasants.

That said, a number of times my life and the life of others were saved by the fact that I am allowed by the Constitution as a private citizen to carry arms. Were I not allowed to carry a firearm I would be dead right now, along with a number of my family and other unarmed people who would have died at the hands of an armed criminal that the police were powerless to react to in time.

As for the right to possess firearms, why do some people accept the idea that it is OK for the 'Collective' (Government) to do things the individual is not allowed to do? In the US, why is it entirely legal and allowable for the US government to kill US citizens 'suspected' of being a threat to 'the State' using drones? Would you trust a government that claims that power?

And that is one of about 1,000,000 reasons why law abiding citizens need the means to defend themselves against not only criminals but also their own government.

Remember our history.
 
We are citizens not subjects just as you're. Dictatorship has long since past. In my view, the history of guns is irrelevant. You need to practically apply the need for them in today's society.

Look at Australia's history with gun legislation. Most of your logic is flawed in the same way to the guy in this video. Gun regulation does work. Having guns does not make citizens safer and it only makes gun related crimes increase. Look at the number of massacres the US has had. In Australia we had 13 gun massacres in the 18 years before the strict gun regulation was brought in. After that? Not a single one.

The right to bare arms should not be assumed as an open ended and limitless right.
 
If you look at the actual FBI crime stats. Overall violent crime is on the decrease as gun ownership is on the rise. Im not sure the stats of Australia but if it is comparable to the UK. True gun crimes would be less as access to guns are heavily restricted however crimes with other weapons and overall violent crime is probably higher than ours.

We arent the wild west as media would have you believe based on fear mongering over every incident that happens. Truth is there is only 466 violent crime per 100K here in America which actually puts us on the lower end compared to other countries.

I dont want criminals to be able to hurt people. No one does. But when you restrict a law abiding citizens right to defend oneself then the criminals will be free to run roughsod over people. Criminals wont stop just because there is a law. Thats why they are "criminals". Hey I have an idea lets just make murder illegal then no one will get hurt...oh yeah....

Benn Swann Reality Check Piers Morgan Crime Stats

Benn Swann Reality Check - FULL gun control special
 
Gotta love John Oliver, he was hilarious in Community but he is also funny in this kind of stuff.
 
Roman has a point, in a way. America is a primitive and violent place, and we should not expect the logic of the civilised world to apply there. Nor should we allow barbarians to have much influence over what happens in the rest of the world.

Americans want to be able to shoot people, should the occasion arise. I get that. Americans do not trust their government, and want to be able to shoot it, should the occasion arise. I get that. However, America should not be held too much as a shining example to the rest of the world.

Whichever way you put it, shooting people is not a polite thing to do. It is not the mark of a gentleman.

Gun related deaths in
Australia: 1.06 per 100K of population
United Kingdom: 0.25 per 100K of population
Canada: 2.38 per 100K of population.
United States: 10.6 per 100K of population

I think my odds of surviving are better in the UK, thank you very much.
 
flemingovia:
Roman has a point, in a way. America is a primitive and violent place, and we should not expect the logic of the civilised world to apply there. Nor should we allow barbarians to have much influence over what happens in the rest of the world.

Americans want to be able to shoot people, should the occasion arise. I get that. Americans do not trust their government, and want to be able to shoot it, should the occasion arise. I get that. However, America should not be held too much as a shining example to the rest of the world.

Whichever way you put it, shooting people is not a polite thing to do. It is not the mark of a gentleman.

Gun related deaths in
Australia: 1.06 per 100K of population
United Kingdom: 0.25 per 100K of population
Canada: 2.38 per 100K of population.
United States: 10.6 per 100K of population

I think my odds of surviving are better in the UK, thank you very much.
Click to expand...
:worship:
 
Yes ignore the stats that dont comply with your worldview. That overall violent crime in 'murica is on the decrease while overall violent crime in those old world European countries are on the increase. There were a total of 12k homicides of which a little over 8k were gun related so 2/3rds of all homicides 1/3rd was not gun related. Of those 8k gun deaths many were justified by law enforcement or deemed justified by law enforcement when a citizen did it.

Its true that a gun violence rate is going to be higher in a country that allows guns vs a country that doesnt. Its common sense. You could use any two countries one that allows vs. Dissallows to prove this. The same as you could prove a higher drowning rate for countries that allow swimming vs. One that outlaws it (a silly example, but its a point.) Its apples and oranges.

However what can not be disputed is though our gun crime rates are higher. Over all violent crime is only 466 per 100k. Compared to 1k or 2k per 100k for other countries. Infact 'Murica barely cracks top 30 of countries in violent crimes.

Also if you look at FBI crime stats (I havent checked in awhile like a year or so since this topic became so hot button so i dont know if 2012 stats are listed yet. But as of 2011 the last stats that were available as far as I know. You can discernably see crime rates are actually decreasing not increasing. Even though firearms are legal.
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/crimestats
 
In fact, in Virginia, at least, violent crime actually decreased proportionally to increases in gun sales.
 
Same in ohio. When CCW licenses went into affect in 2004. They have seen decreases in violent crimes such as forcible rape in all but one year. Though correlation does not equal causation. It is still worth looking into. Why are crimes decreasing as gun ownership increases? Are Criminals afraid to commit crimes because they dont know who has a CCW and can fight back? Or have people especially women been able to use their CCW to fend off an attacker and thus not be made into a crime statistic?
 
Love John Oliver.

No one needs an assault rifle. That's what the ban was on. You can still go duck hunting.

@Roman- next you'll be wanting a nucleat warhead. :boom
 
These were "Assault" Weapons in 1776.
Muskets.jpg

A well regulated milita being nessicary to a free state. The right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed.

Doesnt say you may only have "X weapon".

The 2nd amendment has as much to do with hunting as Ronald McDonald has to do with wrestling. In 1776 there were no Walmarts or grocery stores. Everyone hunted. It was how they got their dinner. The 2nd amendment was put in place to safeguard the citizens right to have arms to rebel if the government became tyrannical like they had to do with King George.

Historically Murica is founded on mistrust of the government.

Todays AR15 is 1776s musket. It is a last ditch effort fail safe to protect the people. I sincerely hope it would never come to that. However the threat of it is legitiment scare tactic to try to make those in government straighten up and fly right and respect the indivdual and the constitution and not become another king George.

It is even in the Dec of Independence the people have a right to abolish the government and refound it if they feel the government is becoming a tyranny.

The founders fought against one tyranny. They didnt want America to turn into another. Historical fact.
 
Didn't you hear the former chief spokesman for U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, Jim Manley? Your AR15 doesn't seem to be producing the desired effect.
 
Oh true it wont stand up to a tank or anything. Hopefully nothing like that would never happen. I dont want that no one does. It seems hopeless sometimes like the IRCabal here running TNP special intrests, IRL politicans are bought paid for and run by the powers that be. And if push does come to shove the little guy citizen mccitizen will always wind up being trampled. You cant fight city hall as they say. I fought the law and the law won.
 
Great Bights Mum:
Didn't you hear the former chief spokesman for U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, Jim Manley? Your AR15 doesn't seem to be producing the desired effect.
Click to expand...
King George III thought that about all those smoothbore muskets the Colonials had, too. :P

Then again, we got our asses handed to us in Vietnam and the Cong didn't have tanks and high tech weapons either. Think about it.


And Harry Reid and Jim Manley are both hypocrites and idiots - they want to disarm law abiding citizens while they have dozens of armed guards to protect themselves. Remember, when the government talks about 'Gun Control', they want to control your guns, not theirs. :P

LETHAL LAWS

Military rifles are society's "life preservers." Without them gun
control can ultimately lead to mass murder.

By Jay Simkin

The Down-Side of Gun Control

Advocates cannot see any harm in gun control, but it has a nasty
downside. Its victims number in the tens of millions. Its downside is
genocide: the mass-murder of civilians on account of religion,
language, or political views. Since 1900, at least seven major
genocides have occurred worldwide involving 50-60 million victims (see
table).

MAJOR 20th CENTURY GENOCIDES -- THE COST OF GUN-CONTROL
Date of
Perpetrator # Murdered Gun-Ctrl Source
Gov. Date Target (Estimated) Law Document
~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~
Ottoman 1915-17 Armenians 1-1.5 Mil. 1866 Art. 166,
Turky Penal Code

Soviet 1929-53 Anti-Comm. 20 Million 1929 Art. 128,
Union Anti-Stal. Penal Code

Nazi 1933-45 Jews, 13 Million 1928 Law on Fire-
Germany Anti-Nazis, arms & Ammun.
& occupied Gypsies April 12,
Europe Weapons Law,
March 18

China 1948-52 Anti- 20 Million 1935 Arts. 186 & 7
Communists Penal Code.
1966- Pro-Reform
1976 Group

Guatemala 1960-81 Mayan 100,000 1871 Decree #36
Indians 1964 Decree #283

Uganda 1971-79 Christians, 300,000 1955 Firearms Ord.
Pol. Rivals 1970 Firearms Act

Cambodia 1975-79 Educated 1 Million 1956 Arts. 322-328,
Persons Penal Code

TOTAL VICTIMS: 55.9 MILLION
_________________________________________________________________

(English translations of the original gun control laws responsible for
all this genocide are in the book, Lethal Laws, available from:

JPFO, Inc.,
2872 South Wentworth Ave
Milwaukee, WI 53207
$24.95 pp.

They also have many other items available, including side-by-side
comparisons of Nazi and U.S. gun control laws.)

The rest of this article deals with the relationship between gun
control and genocide in some detail. It's very enlightening. The
author cites many sources, and also shows:

* Government officials are the world's largest mass murderers.
* How we can prevent genocide in America -- and how it almost
happened HERE to 125,000 Americans in 1941-42.
* The government is NOT all-powerful: All law enforcement (including
military) in the US is only 1.1% of the population.
* Several cases where armed citizens have prevented genocide
(Afghanistan is one example).
* The Chicago Police Department report: from 1965 to 1992, there
were 21,204 gun murders -- Nine (9) were from bullets that might
have come from a military-type weapon!

Read the rest of this article in the March 1994 issue of Guns & Ammo.
The author has been researching this and writing about it for many
years.
Click to expand...
 
At the very least, it should be regulated to rifles and similar weapons associated with hunting. Handguns should only be obtained by those in the security business or a similar business where it is required, regulated and licenses are imposed.

Automatic weapons and anything more powerful than that should be absolutely banned.
 
When the Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment, muskets were among the most advanced weapons available, and, not only did they allow citizens to bear them, they encouraged it.
 
I still don't understand - are the Founding Fathers the greatest experts on what is applicable today that every other American that talks about some political issue has to somehow bring them in? What makes the America of 1776 so similar to the superpower, globally-influential capitalist powerhouse of today, that their opinions or actions must be closely replicated or mimicked by politicians and policy-makers?

I have sort of given up trying to understand the gun debate, and my position coming from a place where guns are banned (but almost every man will still get to carry one thanks to conscription) is that you keep them in the hands of the police and the army. (I can hear the anti-government brigade from a mile away~)
 
PWL: You've ignored the stats put up by Flemingovia. It looks as though you're simply cherry picking the stats that suit your right to own rocket launchers and cruise missiles.

Exactly Lord Nwahs. Things that applied then do not apply today.

The fact that the Australian Constitution says that the Monarch may set-aside a piece of legislation does not mean that this clause is applicable today in the same broad sense that it was when Queen Victoria ruled over the Empire.

It is one of those clauses where the meaning weakens/changes over time, as constitutions adapt to changing times, it would be applied on the advice of the executive government. A monarch would not do it of their own accord.

The Right to free speech is not without responsibilities or even restrictions. I couldn't stand in the street and accuse Romanoffia of something heinous (at least if it were untrue :P) as I could be at risk of a defamation suit.

Similarly, the right to bare arms should not be interpreted as broad as possible. Every right comes with responsibilities. The Congress should be legislating to put adequate protections in place to protect people from unnecessary harm.

I wonder if any of these people would look in the face of a Mother whose child was killed in the recent school shooting and say "Well, that man had a right to own that assault rifle!"

The fact that background checks are too much for some people is just ridiculous.
 
Lord Nwahs:
I still don't understand - are the Founding Fathers the greatest experts on what is applicable today that every other American that talks about some political issue has to somehow bring them in? What makes the America of 1776 so similar to the superpower, globally-influential capitalist powerhouse of today, that their opinions or actions must be closely replicated or mimicked by politicians and policy-makers?

I have sort of given up trying to understand the gun debate, and my position coming from a place where guns are banned (but almost every man will still get to carry one thanks to conscription) is that you keep them in the hands of the police and the army. (I can hear the anti-government brigade from a mile away~)
Click to expand...
What happens if the police or military get too powerful and start to oppress the people. Who's gonna stop them? The military /police can't help because they're the oppressors and the oppressed can't defend themselves because they don't have guns
 
Lajikstan:
Lord Nwahs:
I still don't understand - are the Founding Fathers the greatest experts on what is applicable today that every other American that talks about some political issue has to somehow bring them in? What makes the America of 1776 so similar to the superpower, globally-influential capitalist powerhouse of today, that their opinions or actions must be closely replicated or mimicked by politicians and policy-makers?

I have sort of given up trying to understand the gun debate, and my position coming from a place where guns are banned (but almost every man will still get to carry one thanks to conscription) is that you keep them in the hands of the police and the army. (I can hear the anti-government brigade from a mile away~)
Click to expand...
What happens if the police or military get too powerful and start to oppress the people. Who's gonna stop them? The military /police can't help because they're the oppressors and the oppressed can't defend themselves because they don't have guns
Click to expand...
"The day we stop believing democracy can work is the day we lose it"

In a country like the United States, how likely is it that the police or military would just start randomly killing people? It seems extremely unlikely to me. At least not people in their own country, other countries is a different argument entirely.

Most police and military personnel take their responsibilities extremely seriously and this includes the protection of citizens. Especially in Western countries with a strong sense of patriotism and pride in their military - like the US, Australia, Britain etc.

Around the world, we have seen people take to the streets and fight the oppressors without resulting to shooting them or killing them. Peaceful revolution and non-violent protests are proving to be more effective than violent upheavals. This is in the face of violent dictatorships. If you need guns to protest the American Government, honestly, I'd be surprised.

If you were to suddenly take arms against the government and overthrow them, you risk spinning yourself into a cycle where this will continue to occur.
 
Lajikstan:
What happens if the police or military get too powerful and start to oppress the people. Who's gonna stop them? The military /police can't help because they're the oppressors and the oppressed can't defend themselves because they don't have guns
Click to expand...
Once again, we come from very different societies, and the trust we place in our governments differ. Personally I'm less paranoid about the chances that the military orchestrates a coup d'etat in Singapore or the police utilising its monopoly on arms as a means of oppression. But I can totally see where you're coming from. Just look at Thailand now.

EDIT: I agree with what McM said above.
 
Also, funny you mention background checks. Despite what the media tells you there are strict requirements to obtaining a firearm and license.

1. Make sure you meet the basic requirements before applying for your Ohio Concealed Handgun License:

You must be at least 21 years of age.
You must be an Ohio resident for at least 45 days.
You must be a resident of your home county for at least 30 days.

2. Find a qualified CCW instructor and complete the required 12-hour course to obtain your Certificate of Competency.
Your Certificate of Competency must be no more than 3 years old to qualify for a concealed handgun license. Note: Your concealed handgun license will be proof of training for your first license renewal.
You may also present documentation that proves you are an active or reserve member of the U.S. Military, you have been honorably discharged from the U.S. Military within the past 6 years, or you are a retired law enforcement officer and have experience that is equivalent to the training requirements.

3. Read the Attorney General's pamphlet on Ohio's concealed carry laws. You may get a printed copy during your training course.

4. Locate the sheriff's office in your county (or an adjacent county) and pick up an application for an Ohio Concealed Handgun License. OR go to the sheriff's or Attorney General's website and download the application.
NOTE: Do NOT bring a firearm with you when picking up your application.

5. Have a passport-sized (2" x 2") color photo taken within 30 days of your application date. You may get a passport-sized photo at many photo shops, drug stores, groceries, and similar businesses that handle photo development. Most sheriff departments will also accept a good quality color photo taken with a digital camera and printed on a color printer.

6. Call the sheriff's office to make an appointment to apply for your license. Most sheriffs will NOT allow walk-ins to apply.

7. Take your documents to the sheriff's office and apply for your license. As part of your application, you must:
Present your completed application, Certificate of Competency (or documentation of equivalent experience), and passport-sized color photo.
Present a valid photo I.D., such as your driver's license.
?Pass a criminal background check and mental competency check.

?Submit to having your fingerprints electronically scanned or inked and rolled onto a card.

?Attest that you have read the Attorney General's pamphlet on Ohio's concealed carry laws.

Pay a non-refundable fee by cash, money order, or certified check made payable to your sheriff's office. The fee is $67.00 if you have been an Ohio resident for more than five years, $91.00 if less than five years.
Click to expand...

YES laws csn vary statw to state but generally a criminal background check is standard procedure despite what the democrats tell you.
 
Thailand is a a pretty kettle of fish.

In Thailand, the military has overthrown the government with the consent of the King. In Thai society, the King is extremely respected and a strong cultural symbol. He wouldn't have made that decision lightly.

The High Court had removed the PM based on their own political reasoning. The protests that have followed have crippled the Thai economy and thrown them into instability. The Thai economy relies heavily on tourism, so the on-going protests were a significant issue where tourism is concerned. Since the
"coup", people have returned to work and things are returning to normal.

Taking arms against the military would make things worse in this case. Their best bet is to continue peaceful and non-violent protests and capitalise on social media.



PWL: Despite the fact that you can buy guns online and in the newspapers from random people!
 
mcmasterdonia:
Lajikstan:
Lord Nwahs:
I still don't understand - are the Founding Fathers the greatest experts on what is applicable today that every other American that talks about some political issue has to somehow bring them in? What makes the America of 1776 so similar to the superpower, globally-influential capitalist powerhouse of today, that their opinions or actions must be closely replicated or mimicked by politicians and policy-makers?

I have sort of given up trying to understand the gun debate, and my position coming from a place where guns are banned (but almost every man will still get to carry one thanks to conscription) is that you keep them in the hands of the police and the army. (I can hear the anti-government brigade from a mile away~)
Click to expand...
What happens if the police or military get too powerful and start to oppress the people. Who's gonna stop them? The military /police can't help because they're the oppressors and the oppressed can't defend themselves because they don't have guns
Click to expand...
"The day we stop believing democracy can work is the day we lose it"

In a country like the United States, how likely is it that the police or military would just start randomly killing people? It seems extremely unlikely to me. At least not people in their own country, other countries is a different argument entirely.

Most police and military personnel take their responsibilities extremely seriously and this includes the protection of citizens. Especially in Western countries with a strong sense of patriotism and pride in their military - like the US, Australia, Britain etc.

Around the world, we have seen people take to the streets and fight the oppressors without resulting to shooting them or killing them. Peaceful revolution and non-violent protests are proving to be more effective than violent upheavals. This is in the face of violent dictatorships. If you need guns to protest the American Government, honestly, I'd be surprised.

If you were to suddenly take arms against the government and overthrow them, you risk spinning yourself into a cycle where this will continue to occur.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying the government will randomly start killing people, what I am saying is that the government could get power crazy and take away our freedoms and we couldn't stop them, even with background checks and registration because the government would detain the people who had guns.
 
The gun is just a tool. It is peoples behavior. Spoons didnt make me fat. I chose to over eat. This phone didnt make me mistype my fat fingers did.

The gun is no more a tool then a car is. And according to stats people die more frequently from drunk drivers then in a shooting and no one is clamoring to ban automobiles. You cant blame a tool an inaminate object for the persons abhorrant behavior. You can only blame the person.
 
I don't think it's about playing the blame game on who is responsible. I think the appropriate way to move forward would be to adequately protect innocent people from violence.

Yes, criminals will still get guns. That is true. I think that's irrelevant to the debate about how to appropriately regulate weapons to protect people from harm.
 
I found an essay on this very subject I wrote awhile back going thru my old files. I'd like to format it for the forum link my reference links and such. And repost it here if thats ok.
 
Here's why I support background checks: if you're crazy, or if you're a criminal, I don't think you should get a gun, because you'll kill somebody. Now, of course, there might be some people who still get a hold of them. But many won't. And making it harder for crazy people and criminals to get a gun will reduce gun violence - and, therefore, all violence and homicides in general.
To clarify: Yes, I am pro-background checks. Yes, I am pro-banning certain high-volume clips. However, I am not in favor of taking everybody's guns away. Plus, even I have to admit that that is protected under the 2nd Amendment.
Now, in all honesty, I also would like to see a ban on assault rifles (why would you need one besides for killing people, anyways?), but I know that won't happen, and that even if it somehow miraculously did, the Supreme Court would probably defeat the bill because of the 2nd Amendment.
Also, lastly: I love the Daily Show. It's very funny.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top