Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The link below is to the final part of a multi-part piece done by Jon Oliver and The Daily Show. It turns out Australia and the US are a lot more similar than one might think except Australians as a whole are apparently less crazy and less selfish. And Australian politicians actually care more about their society then their own careers.

Thursday April 25, 2013
Australia & Gun Control's Aftermath
John Oliver learns it's pointless for America to study the Australian gun control experience because the situations are just too similar.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-25-2013/australia---gun-control-s-aftermath

---------------------------------------------------

Here's the middle part of this three part series:

Tuesday April 23, 2013
Gun Control & Political Suicide
John Oliver vows that never again will a political career end in a senseless act of meaningful legislation.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-april-23-2013/gun-control---political-suicide

-----------------------------------------------------

And the first piece in this three part series can be viewed at the link below. Funny and salient stuff.

Thursday April 18, 2013
Gun Control Whoop-de-doo
Following the Senate's defeat of the Manchin-Toomey amendment, John Oliver tests the theory that government-mandated gun control doesn't work.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-18-2013/gun-control-whoop-de-doo

Mexico has excellent gun control laws.
70,000 have died in cartel violence in the last decade.

canada has plenty of guns, and isnt a blood bath,

all the aussies I know think they are worse off without the ability to defend themselves, broad daylight home invasions have become something to fear, since the crooks know no aussies can defend their home, and the crooks still ahve guns.

russia bans civilian guns, yet has had plenty of mass murders in schools, .

they have seen events much worse then in america, one notable event, saw over 150 dead, in a country that bans civilian guns

http://noosphere.princeton.edu/russian.school.html

how is this possible when guns are banned in russia?

how is making a law forcing non crimnalsto not own guns, affecting the criminals who break the law in the first place and have guns already despite current laws already prohibiting them having them?

why do people assume a crook willing to break the laws against murder/theft/him owning a gun with a record/ect will follow a law that says he double plus cannot own guns?

 Frazzled wrote:
Mexico has excellent gun control laws.
70,000 have died in cartel violence in the last decade.

So... they need excellent cartel control laws then?

easysauce wrote:
canada has plenty of guns, and isnt a blood bath,

all the aussies I know think they are worse off without the ability to defend themselves, broad daylight home invasions have become something to fear, since the crooks know no aussies can defend their home, and the crooks still ahve guns.

russia bans civilian guns, yet has had plenty of mass murders in schools, .

they have seen events much worse then in america, one notable event, saw over 150 dead, in a country that bans civilian guns

http://noosphere.princeton.edu/russian.school.html

how is this possible when guns are banned in russia?

how is making a law forcing non crimnalsto not own guns, affecting the criminals who break the law in the first place and have guns already despite current laws already prohibiting them having them?

why do people assume a crook willing to break the laws against murder/theft/him owning a gun with a record/ect will follow a law that says he double plus cannot own guns?

Canada still has a lot less gun than the US (and pretty much any developed country does) also isn't comparing the US to Russia a bit dishonest wouldn't it be better to compare it to more similar nations like the UK, France, Canada, Australia, etc.

2 links you might want to look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

canada may have less total # of guns, but we have more the 30% of our population owning guns (more if you take into account pre registration guns)

comparing russia to US is NOT dishonest, why that is a lie in your mind I do not know, you can say its not applicable in your opinion, but its not dishonest.

if banning guns is the solution to "the problem",

why is "the problem" still in countries that have banned guns?

comparing russia to us is perfectly fair,

both are large, populous super powers, both have had plenty of foreign polocy shenanigans,

both have terror acts/shootings/ect and russia has had it worse,

one bans civilian guns, one doesnt.

using two countries that you consider "non dishonest comparisons"
and the links to wiki that you provided shows:

United States 88.8 guns per 100 people
Canada 30.8 guns per 100 people


the US has a gun death rate of 10.20
and canada has a gun death rate of 2.13

why is it that a country with 1/3 of the guns the US has, only has 1/5 the gun related deaths? OFC according to the wiki article you linked, which includes all gun deaths, suicides accidents ect

why do countries with far fewer guns then canada, have far more gun deaths?

the same question, re russia and the us, is very valid.

my point still very much stands:

if banning guns is the solution to "the problem",

why is "the problem" still in countries that have banned guns?

The US has well over 30% of the population owning guns though, so you can't really compare us. We have 88 guns per 100 people. Canada only has 30.8 per 100.

Canada also doesn't have to deal with as much organized crime.


But yes, its true that banning guns is not a solution to the problem. its like just giving a person who had their arm cut off morphine and no other treatment.

Guns are merely objects of violence, they are not the cause. A gun does not make its owner more likely to commit a violent crime. A psychopath with a knife is more likely to commit a crime than a sane person with a gun.

The real cause is both organized crime and the lack of being able to identify people with mental problems.


Background checks can help, but only if they are implemented in this fashion.

1) We have a national database of known felons and mentally unstable people.

2) When someone buys a gun, you run their name through the database. If there are no hits, they can buy their gun. No record is maintained of the background check or type of gun purchased to protect the citizens privacy.


That is a sensible background check.

Also, this should be accompanied by a universal repeal of all gun bans and restrictions. Our guns are meant to be a check on government power, any restrictions of specific guns violates the second amendment.

So... how does Australian handle the drop bears w/o weapons?

isn't it obvious?

Every Aussie carries a Boomerang

30% is next top teir to the states though grey,

and much higher then the world average,

Im hard pressed to find something with 88% ownership to compare the states too.

my only thought is to compare the states to itself,

where in cities like chicago, where the gun laws are very very restrictive,

they have one of the worse gun crime problems.

and yes... it is 100% the fault of gangs and organized crime, they can pass all the laws they want, but the fact is they have a crime problem, not a gun problem.

then you have other places in the states that make gun ownership "mandatory" and have very little gun crime

I 100% agree, the database of people proven not trustworthy with guns (ie convicted crooks, those diagnosed through due process with mental issues that disqualify, ect)

is the way to go, its cheaper, more effective then a list of people who ARE allowed to own guns, and its not on the slippery slope to encroaching on the 2nd amendmant.

Why I don't think Russia is a fair comparison is because Russia is much more politically corrupt than the US and is considered by some definitions a developing country, if you want to make a better comparisons you should be comparing it to actual developed countries (which is what the

US is).

 Cheesecat wrote:
Why I don't think Russia is a fair comparison is because Russia is much more politically corrupt than the US and is considered by some definitions a developing country, if you want to make a better comparisons you should be comparing it to actual developed countries (which is what the

US is).

That remains to be seen... whelp, the NYT (old school liberal publication) even pointed this out:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/26/us/farm-loan-bias-claims-often-unsupported-cost-us-millions.html?_r=0
Looks like that was the real reason for Shirley Sherrod's firing.

 Cheesecat wrote:
Why I don't think Russia is a fair comparison is because Russia is much more politically corrupt than the US and is considered by some definitions a developing country, if you want to make a better comparisons you should be comparing it to actual developed countries (which is what the

US is).

russia is a 1st world country, with a longer history then the states... not even clost to 3rd world,

and not more corrupt then the states, you just hear more about how corrupt other countries are, because your own media isnt going to tell you how corrupt your country is.

or you just have not been paying attention to things in america like LIBOR, bear stearns, all the ponzi schemes, senate seats being sold, and so on so forth.


I would be quicker to place the US as a 2nd world country then to place russia as a 3rd world one.

as it stands, both are super powers, both are 1st world, both are corrupt, more or less

both experiance the fallout from this crime/corruption

yet the states can do all this and still live up to the ideals that the government is for the people, by the people, of the people

IE the government does not have more rights then its citizens, even with regards to gun ownership.

even if we do assume the pretense that russia is more corrupt, why is that?

could it be that a government that does not fear its people, will be more corrupt then one that does?

russia can do whatever it wants to its people, and they have no way to fight back, so that could lead to this corruption you are talking about.

In america, the politicians at least know that the public has teeth to bite with if they get pushed to far.

easysauce wrote:
russia is a 1st world country, with a longer history then the states... not even clost to 3rd world,

1) Not really. What constitutes 'Russia' has undergone radical changes over the last 200 years , and the government has change several times, while the US has been stable. If you are just going by landmass they are the same age, as the continents were both around going before the countries. Just assuming that because something is on the other side of the pond means it is older is pretty silly.

He also didn't say it was a 3rd world country, he stated that under certain measures it would be classified as a a developing country.

easysauce wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
Why I don't think Russia is a fair comparison is because Russia is much more politically corrupt than the US and is considered by some definitions a developing country, if you want to make a better comparisons you should be comparing it to actual developed countries (which is what the

US is).

russia is a 1st world country, with a longer history then the states... not even clost to 3rd world,

and not more corrupt then the states, you just hear more about how corrupt other countries are, because your own media isnt going to tell you how corrupt your country is.

or you just have not been paying attention to things in america like LIBOR, bear stearns, all the ponzi schemes, senate seats being sold, and so on so forth.


I would be quicker to place the US as a 2nd world country then to place russia as a 3rd world one.

as it stands, both are super powers, both are 1st world, both are corrupt, more or less

both experiance the fallout from this crime/corruption

yet the states can do all this and still live up to the ideals that the government is for the people, by the people, of the people

IE the government does not have more rights then its citizens, even with regards to gun ownership.

even if we do assume the pretense that russia is more corrupt, why is that?

could it be that a government that does not fear its people, will be more corrupt then one that does?

russia can do whatever it wants to its people, and they have no way to fight back, so that could lead to this corruption you are talking about.

In america, the politicians at least know that the public has teeth to bite with if they get pushed to far.

Being a superpower doesn't mean you're a developed country and the 3 world theory is more relevant to Cold War politics and has more to do with which countries were with the USSR, the US or neutral.

If someone already clarified this I'm sorry (I just skimmed the thread), but I'm pretty sure civilian guns aren't banned in Russia.

easysauce wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
Why I don't think Russia is a fair comparison is because Russia is much more politically corrupt than the US and is considered by some definitions a developing country, if you want to make a better comparisons you should be comparing it to actual developed countries (which is what the

US is).

russia is a 1st world country, with a longer history then the states... not even clost to 3rd world,

and not more corrupt then the states, you just hear more about how corrupt other countries are, because your own media isnt going to tell you how corrupt your country is.

Two things:

1) Cheese is from Canada (as far as I know), "his own media" is different from that of the US, and so would have no bias in regards to Russia vs. The US by your logic.

2) Please Please Please Please Please Please Please stop pressing enter every time you write a comma; a comma is not a full stop, it does not mean you have to start a new paragraph and at the moment I'm less likely to agree with your posts purely because you keep on starting new paragraphs when they're unnecessary.

easysauce wrote:
canada has plenty of guns, and isnt a blood bath,

all the aussies I know think they are worse off without the ability to defend themselves, broad daylight home invasions have become something to fear, since the crooks know no aussies can defend their home, and the crooks still ahve guns.

You know some darned paranoid Australians then! As a Kiwi I have many close friend sin Australia, and they have no such fears in the slightest.

how is making a law forcing non crimnals to not own guns, affecting the criminals who break the law in the first place and have guns already despite current laws already prohibiting them having them?

Um, I'm fairly sure that Australians can still own guns. They have just limited types of guns and ammunition and elaborate background checks. Why do gun nuts always think we want there to be no guns anywhere? You can have guns. We just want less of the bullet hoses that kill so many so quickly.

Frazzled wrote:Mexico has excellent gun control laws.
70,000 have died in cartel violence in the last decade.

That's considerably less than the number of firearm-related deaths in the US in the past decade.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Mexico has excellent gun control laws.
70,000 have died in cartel violence in the last decade.

That's considerably less than the number of firearm-related deaths in the US in the past decade.

I guess you didn't read that "cartel violence" part...

The actual number is much higher.

I think it's safe to say there's something wrong with the US when it comes to gun politics and culture if they need to compare their stats to politically unstable/corrupt developing countries in order to look OK.

I have never once in my life feared I would be under the threat of house invasion by criminals if I didn't have a gun.

contrary to believe criminals getting guns illegally tends to be really hard as they tend to cost a lot to buy, maintain and hide without being caught.

People in Australia can still buy guns legally but you need to have a license and be able to give a good reason to why you want/need one. Military weaponry i.e automatic/semi auto weapons tend to be restricted to occupational or military use only.

I admit that some states are bit more lenient with guns laws while some are extremely strict such as Tasmania not allowing people to even own paintball guns due to the port Arthur massacre for example.
But as a nation most people here don't feel their lives are threatened for not having access to some guns.

I can say i don't mind guns much, but having access to military grade weaponry isn't going to make things safer for people.

I would feel less safe if anyone could get their hands on a military rifle with a large ammo capacity and able to fire more then 600 rounds per minute.

But that is how I feel as a Australian.

Many people I know who are also Australian will agree with me.

Yeah, that 'many australians that I know fear for their lives because of daylight house invasions' thing...not so sure. Never come across anyone scared of that, and I actually live here (and I'm living in a pretty dodgy part of brisbane to be honest, and even then there is no worry of this)

 Grey Templar wrote:




2) When someone buys a gun, you run their name through the database. If there are no hits, they can buy their gun. No record is maintained of the background check or type of gun purchased to protect the citizens privacy.

I'd like to point out that this is exactly the system we have now for the purchase of firearms. The only thing missing from your proposal is the mental illness. There's a problem with adding mental illness to the database, in that what kinds/ severity of mental illness would prohibit a firearm purchase? Diagnosed/ confirmed by how many doctors? Is treatment enough to allow an exception? Is putting somebody on the "too wacko to own a gun" list a violation of privacy? The term 'illness' indicates a potential cure; how long does one stay on this list, or is it permanent?

Lordhat wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:




2) When someone buys a gun, you run their name through the database. If there are no hits, they can buy their gun. No record is maintained of the background check or type of gun purchased to protect the citizens privacy.

I'd like to point out that this is exactly the system we have now for the purchase of firearms. The only thing missing from your proposal is the mental illness. There's a problem with adding mental illness to the database, in that what kinds/ severity of mental illness would prohibit a firearm purchase? Diagnosed/ confirmed by how many doctors? Is treatment enough to allow an exception? Is putting somebody on the "too wacko to own a gun" list a violation of privacy? The term 'illness' indicates a potential cure; how long does one stay on this list, or is it permanent?

Search YouTube for "gangstalking" and you'll very quickly understand the concern of not including mental illness on the list of reasons to exclude firearm ownership.

easysauce wrote:
all the aussies I know think they are worse off without the ability to defend themselves, broad daylight home invasions have become something to fear, since the crooks know no aussies can defend their home, and the crooks still ahve guns.

HI THERE! I'm Michael, i'm an Australian citizen by birth.

Right now that you know me.
I live in what's considered a rough neighbourhood. Granted it's probably fairly safe by American standards. I have never, NEVER felt unsafe in my neighbourhood. Not once. I have never feared getting jumped late at night and i don't know anyone who has been. I don't think i'm worse off for not being able to get a gun. I have no need of a gun. I have no use for gun. I would also like to see some evidence of these broad daylight home invasions and how they are something we fear. I also take personal offence at the remark about not being able to defend the house i live in. Now i don't know any form of martial arts, i don't box, hell im not even that good of a fighter. But to imply i can't defend myself, my parents or my brother without the need of a firearm is downright insulting. You try to break into my house and/or threaten a member of my family and i'll tear your fething face off with my bare hands. Better yet i'll cave your miscreant skull in with the ball peen hammer stashed next to the bookcase in the hallway or i'll gouge out your eyes with the needle nose pliers sitting on my bench. Or you know what, i might not do anything. I might just sit back and let the two Staffordshire Bull Terriers we own rip your bloody throat out.

And to make such a crass sweaping generalisation as "no aussie can defend their homes" because we don't have guns is... disgusting, not to put to finer point on it.

So please, do yourself a favour. Don't talk about things you have no clue about.

So, what would you do if one of the Australian criminals who does own a gun comes calling?

What happens when your dogs get shot before they accomplish a thing and your hammer and pliers are useless?


From what I've heard the aussie police force isn't exactly fast responding even when compared to police responses in the US, and here it can still take a long time for police to respond.

Not saying its extremely likely but its something to consider. You'll be absolutely screwed if a gun toting criminal does show up.

Grey Templar wrote:So, what would you do if one of the Australian criminals who does own a gun comes calling?

What happens when your dogs get shot before they accomplish a thing and your hammer and pliers are useless?


From what I've heard the aussie police force isn't exactly fast responding even when compared to police responses in the US, and here it can still take a long time for police to respond.

Not saying its extremely likely but its something to consider. You'll be absolutely screwed if a gun toting criminal does show up.

Probably the same thing he'll do if a very large wave sweeps up a shark and washes it right through his window. Improvise, because planning for the one-in-a-million (likely longer odds, actually) is ridiculous.

That is, it's a highly unlikely concern because the criminals have an exceedingly difficult time obtaining firearms.

But is it truly that difficult?

What is the incidence of criminals having firearms down there? Is it something like 1 in 10,000? Or something around 1 in 100.

If its close to 1/100 than its still a significant risk.


And a criminal is far more likely to have a firearm than a tidal wave is to sweep a shark through his window.

While the criminals may have firearms, there aren't home invasions in broad daylight that we all live in quaking fear of because we don't have guns, was I think the point several Australians have tried to make.

And I nearly typed 'funs' instead of guns. That would have been funny.