This Australian Comic’s Take on America’s Absurd Gun Laws is Brilliant (Video)

[gourimoko]

I don't disagree with your big three of defense, preservation or deterrent. I just thought you really emphasized the tyranny bit.

As for rebellion, I don't think the scenario is realistic. How popular would the rebellion be and why wouldn't such a large portion of the electorate be unable to influence policy? I'd be interested in your hypothetical because the rebellion would have to be huge for it to last very long against the military. The technological gap in the arms available to either side is too wide at present.

The numbers you suggest would be more indicative of a civil war.

I actually removed the bolded from my post as it was getting too long, but this is exactly what I'm referring to, rather than a simple insurrection.

 

[Tornicade]

Australia gun control laws have had little impact on crime although it has reduced suicides.
I found the comedian funny.

As far as the threat of tyranny though. it isnt about who wins but the cost of doing so.
should the military or some other faction take over the government it would be difficult for that faction to maintain power

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

This video is pretty much what most Australians think regarding US gun control. For those passionate about their rights to carry arms, would love to hear your stance/opposition to this after watching the video. Would also love to hear from those who agree.

I know that this kind of thing can be a rather tense subject so let's keep it nice and civil fellas!

First, I think this comedian glosses over the distinction between actual gun possession, and gun laws. He apparently believes that if you pass a law banning guns, it flips a magical switch that makes all guns disappear. Maybe that's the way it worked in Australia, but I don't think it would work that way here.

I don't know how many guns were in private hands in Australia prior to the ban, but in the U.S., it's estimated that there are over 200 million. And there's no way that the mere passage of a law is going to change that substantially in any reasonable time period. And the most likely to turn in their guns are the least likely to use them in a crime. So, his flip conclusion that passage of an equivalent gun law in the U.S. would eliminate shootings is baseless.

Second, there are hundreds of thousands of documented incidents each year where citizens have used guns to protect themselves against violent crime. Maybe that isn't/wasn't the case in Australia, but it is here. Passing such a law ignores and devalues the right of people to defend themselves from violent criminals who might otherwise be able to overpower them.

Okla. Woman Shoots, Kills Intruder: 911 Operators Say It's OK to Shoot

A young Oklahoma mother shot and killed an intruder to protect her 3-month-old baby on New Year's Eve, less than a week after the baby's father died of cancer.

Sarah McKinley says that a week earlier a man named Justin Martin dropped by on the day of her husband's funeral, claiming that he was a neighbor who wanted to say hello. The 18-year-old Oklahoma City area woman did not let him into her home that day.

On New Year's Eve Martin returned with another man, Dustin Stewart, and this time was armed with a 12-inch hunting knife. The two soon began trying to break into McKinley's home.

As one of the men was going from door to door outside her home trying to gain entry, McKinley called 911 and grabbed her 12-gauge shotgun.

McKinley told ABC News Oklahoma City affiliate KOCO that she quickly got her 12 gauge, went into her bedroom and got a pistol, put the bottle in the baby's mouth and called 911.

"I've got two guns in my hand -- is it okay to shoot him if he comes in this door?" the young mother asked the 911 dispatcher. "I'm here by myself with my infant baby, can I please get a dispatcher out here immediately?"
The 911 dispatcher confirmed with McKinley that the doors to her home were locked as she asked again if it was okay to shoot the intruder if he were to come through her door.

"I can't tell you that you can do that but you do what you have to do to protect your baby," the dispatcher told her. McKinley was on the phone with 911 for a total of 21 minutes.

When Martin kicked in the door and came after her with the knife, the teen mom shot and killed the 24-year-old. Police are calling the shooting justified.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/okla-woman-shoots-kills-intruder911-operators-shoot/story?id=15285605

I wonder how funny that comedian would have found the story that would have been written had this young mother not been able to defend herself.

Here's some incidents from just this month alone:

https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx

 

[OptimusPrime]

I don't disagree with your big three of defense, preservation or deterrent. I just thought you really emphasized the tyranny bit.

As for rebellion, I don't think the scenario is realistic. How popular would the rebellion be and why wouldn't such a large portion of the electorate be unable to influence policy? I'd be interested in your hypothetical because the rebellion would have to be huge for it to last very long against the military. The technological gap in the arms available to either side is too wide at present.

This is true and this is why any law regulating what arms the people can own is illegal, and also is why those laws were passed.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

This is true and this is why any law regulating what arms the people can own is illegal, and also is why those laws were passed.

How do you define "arms"? Is it any weapon, only personal weapons, or what? Do tanks and surface to air missiles count as "arms" that private citizens should be able to purchase freely, or what?

 

[OptimusPrime]

How do you define "arms"? Is it any weapon, only personal weapons, or what? Do tanks and surface to air missiles count as "arms" that private citizens should be able to purchase freely, or what?

Yes.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Yes.

How far does that go? If you can buy your own tank (and presumably the ammo that goes with it), could you also buy FAE devices? Nukes, etc., as a "deterrent" to the government getting too uppity?
In any case...

This is true and this is why any law regulating what arms the people can own is illegal, and also is why those laws were passed.

The bolded language seems a huge stretch. You really think that laws against citizens owning tanks, etc., were passed because of a fear of insurrection, rather than a fear that criminals could use one to horrible advantage against innocent citizens? That it would enable any nutbag to use that surface to air missile to shoot down a passenger aircraft??

Because I'm pro Second Amendment, but the idea of any schmuck being able to purchase a tank or SAM scares the shit out of me.

 

[OptimusPrime]

How far does that go? If you can buy your own tank (and presumably the ammo that goes with it), could you also buy FAE devices? Nukes, etc., as a "deterrent" to the government getting too uppity?
In any case...

We should be able to own anything that in itself doesn't violent the rights of others. So having a nuclear weapon in your garage wouldn't count. Though if the people organize a proper militia that can handle such a thing there is nothing wrong with that.

Honestly, whatever the government can have, the people can have. Period. There is no reason to be afraid of private citizens shooting a missile at an airplane. They could do it now if they wanted to. The reason they haven't is there is no reason for someone to do it.

The bolded language seems a huge stretch. You really think that laws against citizens owning tanks, etc., were passed because of a fear of insurrection, rather than a fear that criminals could use one to horrible advantage against innocent citizens?

Yes. Absolutely. Do you really think they give a fuck if you are confronted by an armed criminal? They are armed criminals.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

We should be able to own anything that in itself doesn't violent the rights of others. So having a nuclear weapon in your garage wouldn't count.

Why? How does me having one sitting in my garage harm anyone unless I use it? And let's say we add the caveat of "properly shielded", etc.

Honestly, whatever the government can have, the people can have. Period. There is no reason to be afraid of private citizens shooting a missile at an airplane. They could do it now if they wanted to. The reason they haven't is there is no reason for someone to do it.

You've got to be joking.... What reason was there for those assholes to fly planes into buildings and kill 3000 people? What reason was there for those two assholes to plant that bomb at the Boston Marathon?? What reason was there for Major Hasan to shoot 40 people? What reason was there for that guy to walk into Chardon High School and murder those students? Etc., etc. etc..

You do at least acknowledge that there are terrorists in this country who want to kill American citizens, right? One you make it perfectly legal for any schmuck to own a tank, all it would take is a funds transfer, a purchase, and you've now given anyone with the desire the ability to kill hundreds of people, and be able to easily overpower law enforcement.

Yes. Absolutely. Do you really think they give a fuck if you are confronted by an armed criminal? They are armed criminals.

Well, I generally vote for people that give a fuck if I'm confronted by armed criminals. That's why gun control laws were not universal even prior to the Supreme Court's decision.

Speaking of which, how does your paranoia explain the Supreme Court recognizing an individual right to keep and bear arms? If the "they" was as omnipotent and in control as you claim, that should never have been able to happen.

 

[OptimusPrime]

You do at least acknowledge that there are terrorists in this country who want to kill American citizens, right? One you make it perfectly legal for any schmuck to own a tank, all it would take is a funds transfer, a purchase, and you've now given anyone with the desire the ability to kill hundreds of people, and be able to easily overpower law enforcement.

I'm sure there are. But if one of them bought a tank, then surely law enforcement as well as other citizens would have them as well, So they wouldn't be overpowering anything.

Well, I generally vote for people that give a fuck if I'm confronted by armed criminals.

No, you don't. You just think you do.

Speaking of which, how does your paranoia explain the Supreme Court recognizing an individual right to keep and bear arms? If the "they" was as omnipotent and in control as you claim, that should never have been able to happen.

At this point in time they are still pretending to abide by the Constitution most of the time. But if current gun laws were ruled Constitutional, then the Supreme Court has recognized no such right.

 

[Lee]

Let him live in Detroit or drop Detroit in Australia and see if he changes his mind...

Ultimately that is the problem. Our society is why we have so many gun deaths, not our society's laws.

It starts with the media sensationalizing guns and continues with societal attitudes on both sides of the argument.

Personally i dont think harder gun laws is really the answer. I do find those who own a gun think it is a defense against a homicidal maniac laughable(try stopping a guy who doesnt value life but has a fully automatic weapon in his hands, people are going to die), but certain weapons should remain legal for hunting purposes. (although a real man would hunt with a bow not a gun, but that is a different argument, lol)

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I'm sure there are. But if one of them bought a tank, then surely law enforcement as well as other citizens would have them as well, So they wouldn't be overpowering anything.

Riiiiight....Every local PD in the country would be getting an $6M tank, and the crew, ammo, etc. to keep it running, just in case some criminal happens to have one. This coming from the guy who doesn't want to see the police heavily armed in the first place....

And that's not even mentioning the SAM's, hyperbaric explosives, grenades, etc. etc. etc, all of which you think ordinary people should be permitted to possess. Doesn't really do much good to buy any of those unless you want to kill a lot of people quickly, in which case....hey, why not?

 

[OptimusPrime]

Riiiiight....Every local PD in the country would be getting an $6M tank, and the crew, ammo, etc. to keep it running, just in case some criminal happens to have one. This coming from the guy who doesn't want to see the police heavily armed in the first place....

And that's not even mentioning the SAM's, hyperbaric explosives, grenades, etc. etc. etc, all of which you think ordinary people should be permitted to possess. Doesn't really do much good to buy any of those unless you want to kill a lot of people quickly, in which case....hey, why not?

I don't want the police to be more armed than the people. If the people have tanks, the police should too. And police departments have tanks right now while the people do not, so I'm sure they would have no problem getting them if we did.

I just don't understand why you think the law is what is stopping people from using these things now. Someone who was really determined could get his or her hands on these things if they wanted to. Just like all of the gun bans here haven't eliminated those either, and never will. The only ones killing innocent people with grenades and SAMs are the government.

But I'm not unreasonable. If these types of weapons are that upsetting to you, then take them away from the government and I can live with taking them away from the people.

 

[The Oi]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pU2oZYcx6QY

 

[MRMsix6]

(although a real man would hunt with a bow not a gun, but that is a different argument, lol)

Fuck that, a real man uses his bare hands to hunt. Maybe a knife or sword if he wants to cheat a little.

But a bow? That's just cowardly.