FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
TYT - How did Australians deal with their mass shootings?

TYT - How did Australians deal with their mass shootings?

(4:35) After a shooting in 1996, Australians took decisive action to curb mass shootings by introducing draconian gun control. But did it work? Cenk Uygur gives the numbers.

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1822 days ago)
Is your argument, 'this technology (firearms) is just too dangerous and of too little use to be allowed to people?' You could say the same thing about private light aircraft, motorcycles, private swimming pools etc
ReplyVote up (174)down (95)
Original comment
Is your argument, 'this technology (firearms) is just too dangerous and of too little use to be allowed to people?' You could say the same thing about private light aircraft, motorcycles, private swimming pools etc
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Filmaddict Filmaddict (1820 days ago)
So what is the issue in the USA? The NRA et al., lobbying for continued firearm sales; ergo, get rid of them = reduce the homicides by firearms significantly. Simple really! By the way, the USA wouldn't be having such issues with the NRA if firearms were classified as consumables i.e. if firearms had an end of usability (aka fit for use) date, therefore continued sales would persist in the foreseeable future, without novices applying for registration etc
ReplyVote up (130)down (93)
Original comment
So what is the issue in the USA? The NRA et al., lobbying for continued firearm sales; ergo, get rid of them = reduce the homicides by firearms significantly. Simple really! By the way, the USA wouldn't be having such issues with the NRA if firearms were classified as consumables i.e. if firearms had an end of usability (aka fit for use) date, therefore continued sales would persist in the foreseeable future, without novices applying for registration etc
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1823 days ago)
Cenk, you're wrong as usual. Mexico has gun control and there are more gun deaths per capita than the US. Besides, the reason we have guns is to have the people overthrow the government with a militia if the government becomes too powerful and does something stupid like try to take our guns away from us.
ReplyVote up (149)down (134)
Original comment
Cenk, you're wrong as usual. Mexico has gun control and there are more gun deaths per capita than the US. Besides, the reason we have guns is to have the people overthrow the government with a militia if the government becomes too powerful and does something stupid like try to take our guns away from us.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: PeterLondon (1823 days ago)
cengland0 - to overthrow the government you will need surface-to-air missiles, anti-tank rockets, anti-tank mines, attack helicopters with machine guns etc. Presumably you agree that the "militia" - e.g.: any and all nut cases - should have such weapons? After all, "surface-to-air missiles don't kill people, people kill people" eh? The 2nd amendment clearly states that the people have a right to "bear arms". An attack helicopter is clear an "arm" or armament correct? So clearly, any 18 year old with no criminal record should be able to buy one at Walmart correct?
ReplyVote up (138)down (78)
Original comment
cengland0 - to overthrow the government you will need surface-to-air missiles, anti-tank rockets, anti-tank mines, attack helicopters with machine guns etc. Presumably you agree that the "militia" - e.g.: any and all nut cases - should have such weapons? After all, "surface-to-air missiles don't kill people, people kill people" eh? The 2nd amendment clearly states that the people have a right to "bear arms". An attack helicopter is clear an "arm" or armament correct? So clearly, any 18 year old with no criminal record should be able to buy one at Walmart correct?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1823 days ago)
PeterLondon, as an FYI, the 2nd amendment states, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It does not mention anything about bearing arms for self defense or for hunting and it very clear about the purpose for carrying the weapons is to overthrow the government. Regarding your comments about needing surface-to-air missiles, rockets, helicopters, etc is not true. Why would you need to destroy airplanes to take back your country from a dictator? The civilian population outweighs the military population -- assuming you mean the government will use the military to attack their civilians. If both were armed and fighting, I'd rather be on the side of the civilians to defend the freedoms we enjoy in America.
ReplyVote up (131)down (89)
Original comment
PeterLondon, as an FYI, the 2nd amendment states, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It does not mention anything about bearing arms for self defense or for hunting and it very clear about the purpose for carrying the weapons is to overthrow the government. Regarding your comments about needing surface-to-air missiles, rockets, helicopters, etc is not true. Why would you need to destroy airplanes to take back your country from a dictator? The civilian population outweighs the military population -- assuming you mean the government will use the military to attack their civilians. If both were armed and fighting, I'd rather be on the side of the civilians to defend the freedoms we enjoy in America.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: realist (1823 days ago)
it's more of a cultural mindset. the average US rightwinger has it tattoo'd in their head that they need guns. A 2nd civil war will never happen because of current technological differences between the army and a civilian militia (a half dozen can hold off hundreds... see iraq). The 2nd amendment was fine... 3 centuries ago. It wouldn't work now. However, fear mongering fanatics on the right believe that the thousands of innocents killed is an excuse to prevent an fantasy 1984 (btw it's the right wing who has done the most to bring us to that dystopia.. self serving motive?).
ReplyVote up (145)down (128)
Original comment
it's more of a cultural mindset. the average US rightwinger has it tattoo'd in their head that they need guns. A 2nd civil war will never happen because of current technological differences between the army and a civilian militia (a half dozen can hold off hundreds... see iraq). The 2nd amendment was fine... 3 centuries ago. It wouldn't work now. However, fear mongering fanatics on the right believe that the thousands of innocents killed is an excuse to prevent an fantasy 1984 (btw it's the right wing who has done the most to bring us to that dystopia.. self serving motive?).
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: PeterLondon (1823 days ago)
Ha ha ha! Your silly posts always make us all chuckle here at Liveleak. Take a look at what's happening in Syria where the government is firing Scud MISSILES at it's population and using TANKS. You are so naive about the evil that governments can inflict on their own people. The US government now has given itself the right to kill US citizens without due process; and to detain them indefinitely without trial. And you think that a couple of handguns will stop them turing on their population in the future?
ReplyVote up (87)down (101)
Original comment
Ha ha ha! Your silly posts always make us all chuckle here at Liveleak. Take a look at what's happening in Syria where the government is firing Scud MISSILES at it's population and using TANKS. You are so naive about the evil that governments can inflict on their own people. The US government now has given itself the right to kill US citizens without due process; and to detain them indefinitely without trial. And you think that a couple of handguns will stop them turing on their population in the future?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1822 days ago)
PeterLondon, who said anything about a couple of hand guns to stop the government from turning on their population? It says, "bear arms" which could be any weapon technically. You are personally interpreting that as a hand gun. It means swords and grenades too. Anyway, this discussion was supposed to be about gun control and I would like to go back on subject and state that most of the mass shootings are in gun free zones anyway. In other words, the first "postal" incident occurred in a government building which is illegal to carry. It's also illegal to carry a gun in a school. So this proves, to my satisfaction, that making guns illegal does not stop people from carrying guns. Additionally, if you make it illegal to carry guns, only the law abiding citizens will be unarmed and the criminals will still have them. Soem drugs are illegal and criminals still sell them so what makes you believe guns would be any different?
ReplyVote up (72)down (159)
Original comment
PeterLondon, who said anything about a couple of hand guns to stop the government from turning on their population? It says, "bear arms" which could be any weapon technically. You are personally interpreting that as a hand gun. It means swords and grenades too. Anyway, this discussion was supposed to be about gun control and I would like to go back on subject and state that most of the mass shootings are in gun free zones anyway. In other words, the first "postal" incident occurred in a government building which is illegal to carry. It's also illegal to carry a gun in a school. So this proves, to my satisfaction, that making guns illegal does not stop people from carrying guns. Additionally, if you make it illegal to carry guns, only the law abiding citizens will be unarmed and the criminals will still have them. Soem drugs are illegal and criminals still sell them so what makes you believe guns would be any different?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1822 days ago)
Since the UK is a gun-free zone, would your advice to Brits be to ditch gun control because that would reduce our gun deaths?
ReplyVote up (101)down (99)
Original comment
Since the UK is a gun-free zone, would your advice to Brits be to ditch gun control because that would reduce our gun deaths?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1822 days ago)
I answer your question by saying that it would be nice to be able to defend myself against someone breaking into my home with a weapon. It doesn't matter if they have a sword or a gun -- I still want to have some sort of defense and a long range weapon like a gun gives you a better chance of getting them before they get close enough to get you. Do you believe if I call the police when someone breaks in that they will be there fast enough to protect me? I can only assume the police will be there after I'm already dead unless I can defend myself. Without me being able to own a gun, what is your solution to the problems of self defense against those illegal people that will buy them?
ReplyVote up (114)down (89)
Original comment
I answer your question by saying that it would be nice to be able to defend myself against someone breaking into my home with a weapon. It doesn't matter if they have a sword or a gun -- I still want to have some sort of defense and a long range weapon like a gun gives you a better chance of getting them before they get close enough to get you. Do you believe if I call the police when someone breaks in that they will be there fast enough to protect me? I can only assume the police will be there after I'm already dead unless I can defend myself. Without me being able to own a gun, what is your solution to the problems of self defense against those illegal people that will buy them?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1822 days ago)
Your answer is an emotional and personal response, probably also tinged with a libertarian ideal - which is fine. But for a nation, the evidence around the world undeniably shows that effective gun control reduces gun deaths. Surely it's evidence that should drive policy and not a personal feeling or ideology?
ReplyVote up (121)down (116)
Original comment
Your answer is an emotional and personal response, probably also tinged with a libertarian ideal - which is fine. But for a nation, the evidence around the world undeniably shows that effective gun control reduces gun deaths. Surely it's evidence that should drive policy and not a personal feeling or ideology?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1822 days ago)
If you could guarantee me that every single person in the US would be disarmed at the same time -- including criminals -- and nobody would be able to manufacture or buy guns in the underground, then I would listen to your ideology. Unfortunately, you cannot make that guarantee so I prefer that the citizens are armed to defend themselves. Besides, like many people before have stated, the cities that have strict gun control are the ones that have the most gun related crimes. Those cities that have fewer gun control laws have fewer gun related deaths. So how do you explain that? You're looking at the stats of the US as a whole and not at each geographic location and analyzing the deaths with their respective gun laws. Be fair with your statistics.
ReplyVote up (140)down (93)
Original comment
If you could guarantee me that every single person in the US would be disarmed at the same time -- including criminals -- and nobody would be able to manufacture or buy guns in the underground, then I would listen to your ideology. Unfortunately, you cannot make that guarantee so I prefer that the citizens are armed to defend themselves. Besides, like many people before have stated, the cities that have strict gun control are the ones that have the most gun related crimes. Those cities that have fewer gun control laws have fewer gun related deaths. So how do you explain that? You're looking at the stats of the US as a whole and not at each geographic location and analyzing the deaths with their respective gun laws. Be fair with your statistics.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1822 days ago)
I didn't know the stat: "cities that have fewer gun control laws have fewer gun related deaths". But for what it's worth, I can offer an explanation. In a country where gun laws differ depending on where you are, places with stricter gun laws will attract armed criminals. Much better to do an armed robbery where it is less likely the public will be armed. It's easy enough to buy a gun somewhere else and bring it in, after all, there's no border control around New York City.
ReplyVote up (115)down (148)
Original comment
I didn't know the stat: "cities that have fewer gun control laws have fewer gun related deaths". But for what it's worth, I can offer an explanation. In a country where gun laws differ depending on where you are, places with stricter gun laws will attract armed criminals. Much better to do an armed robbery where it is less likely the public will be armed. It's easy enough to buy a gun somewhere else and bring it in, after all, there's no border control around New York City.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1822 days ago)
Some interesting stats from The Guardian for you to ponder over: "In 2010 there were 12,996 murders in the US. Of those, 8,775 were caused by firearms. But, that figure is small compared to accidental shooting deaths which brings the annual total to more than 30,000." LINK In 2011 in the UK there were about 550 murders, 51 by firearms. Just in case you are doing the maths, UK population is about 70 million.
ReplyVote up (144)down (163)
Original comment
Some interesting stats from The Guardian for you to ponder over: "In 2010 there were 12,996 murders in the US. Of those, 8,775 were caused by firearms. But, that figure is small compared to accidental shooting deaths which brings the annual total to more than 30,000." LINK In 2011 in the UK there were about 550 murders, 51 by firearms. Just in case you are doing the maths, UK population is about 70 million.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1822 days ago)
The homicide rate in the UK has always been a fraction of the US going back to the 18th century when there was no gun control in either place. I don't know why this should be but it is, look it up. The odd thing is the forcible rape, assault and robbery rates are all higher than the U.S. and the burglary rate is nearly triple. If we assume at least some of the murders in the U.S. happen only because guns are available surely by the same token we must assume at least some of these other crimes don't. How do you decide how many rapes or injuries equal a murder? I'm glad I don't have to.
ReplyVote up (133)down (64)
Original comment
The homicide rate in the UK has always been a fraction of the US going back to the 18th century when there was no gun control in either place. I don't know why this should be but it is, look it up. The odd thing is the forcible rape, assault and robbery rates are all higher than the U.S. and the burglary rate is nearly triple. If we assume at least some of the murders in the U.S. happen only because guns are available surely by the same token we must assume at least some of these other crimes don't. How do you decide how many rapes or injuries equal a murder? I'm glad I don't have to.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1822 days ago)
Those numbers are meaningless because I can point to other countries like Mexico that it's illegal to carry guns and there are more gun related deaths than the US. So what you're saying is if the people in the US were not allowed to carry guns, all those people the were murdered by firearms would still be alive today? You think they wouldn't have been killed by illegal firearms instead or by knives, poison, or hit by cars? It's unfortunate that people are killed by accidental shooting but that happens with almost any product. How many children were killed by accidentally swallowing small parts off toys? How many people were killed by drunk drivers? People have been killed for wearing too long of a scarf so should we make scarfs illegal too?
ReplyVote up (114)down (113)
Original comment
Those numbers are meaningless because I can point to other countries like Mexico that it's illegal to carry guns and there are more gun related deaths than the US. So what you're saying is if the people in the US were not allowed to carry guns, all those people the were murdered by firearms would still be alive today? You think they wouldn't have been killed by illegal firearms instead or by knives, poison, or hit by cars? It's unfortunate that people are killed by accidental shooting but that happens with almost any product. How many children were killed by accidentally swallowing small parts off toys? How many people were killed by drunk drivers? People have been killed for wearing too long of a scarf so should we make scarfs illegal too?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1822 days ago)
Mexico should be banned from this debate - it cannot be compared because it is arguably in civil war. They might have gun control in theory, but certainly not in practice. The meaningless number that stood out for me was the 22,000 accidentally killed by firearms. Americans seem particularly adroit at friendly fire.
ReplyVote up (189)down (80)
Original comment
Mexico should be banned from this debate - it cannot be compared because it is arguably in civil war. They might have gun control in theory, but certainly not in practice. The meaningless number that stood out for me was the 22,000 accidentally killed by firearms. Americans seem particularly adroit at friendly fire.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1822 days ago)
Okay then use Israel and Switzerland as examples. A license to possess guns is available to every law-abiding adult, and guns are easily obtainable in both nations. Both countries also allow widespread carrying of concealed firearms, and Switzerland and Israel have rates of homicide that are low despite rates of home firearm ownership that are at least as high as those in the United States. Switzerland has a rate of 0.7 per 100,000 murder rate while the UK has a rate of 1.2 per 100,000.
ReplyVote up (179)down (81)
Original comment
Okay then use Israel and Switzerland as examples. A license to possess guns is available to every law-abiding adult, and guns are easily obtainable in both nations. Both countries also allow widespread carrying of concealed firearms, and Switzerland and Israel have rates of homicide that are low despite rates of home firearm ownership that are at least as high as those in the United States. Switzerland has a rate of 0.7 per 100,000 murder rate while the UK has a rate of 1.2 per 100,000.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1821 days ago)
Switzerland is an interesting country. They have compulsory military service and you get to keep your gun after you have served (this included ammo until 2007). They also have a history of neutrality, a unique geographical position (small mountainous land-locked country in the middle of a warring Europe), and a small population (about 8 million). Only 5% of their army is military personnel, the rest are conscripts. They expect their citizens to take up arms if necessary to fight for their country. The US is completely different - the right to bear arms is about civil war. Not everyone is trained in firearms use. And American culture is completely opposite to Swiss neutrality. Arming the Swiss population works in Switzerland, it most certainly does not work in the US - as you've shown, the numbers prove it. As for Israel, they are obviously a special case.
ReplyVote up (127)down (113)
Original comment
Switzerland is an interesting country. They have compulsory military service and you get to keep your gun after you have served (this included ammo until 2007). They also have a history of neutrality, a unique geographical position (small mountainous land-locked country in the middle of a warring Europe), and a small population (about 8 million). Only 5% of their army is military personnel, the rest are conscripts. They expect their citizens to take up arms if necessary to fight for their country. The US is completely different - the right to bear arms is about civil war. Not everyone is trained in firearms use. And American culture is completely opposite to Swiss neutrality. Arming the Swiss population works in Switzerland, it most certainly does not work in the US - as you've shown, the numbers prove it. As for Israel, they are obviously a special case.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1821 days ago)
But you miss the point of the discussion. It's not about gun control because you can find many examples out there where it differs. There must be some other reason we have a high murder rate and it's not because we own guns.
ReplyVote up (120)down (78)
Original comment
But you miss the point of the discussion. It's not about gun control because you can find many examples out there where it differs. There must be some other reason we have a high murder rate and it's not because we own guns.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1820 days ago)
Yes you're right, bottom line is the murder rate. But the level of gun control must be a part of the equation. I think a part of the answer lies in matching the level of gun control with the culture of the nation - and in the case of the US, there is a massive mismatch resulting in a murder rate way above most of Europe. Gun laws are much easier and faster to change than culture. As has been shown in Australia (culturally much closer to the US than Switzerland), introducing gun control worked spectacularly.
ReplyVote up (114)down (111)
Original comment
Yes you're right, bottom line is the murder rate. But the level of gun control must be a part of the equation. I think a part of the answer lies in matching the level of gun control with the culture of the nation - and in the case of the US, there is a massive mismatch resulting in a murder rate way above most of Europe. Gun laws are much easier and faster to change than culture. As has been shown in Australia (culturally much closer to the US than Switzerland), introducing gun control worked spectacularly.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1820 days ago)
Since doing nothing is not the answer, I suggest an experiment - follow the Australian example for 5 years. If after 5 years, the murder rate goes up, then scrap gun control. Much better experimenting this way round, because relaxing gun control first, and if the murder rate rises, trying to remove all the guns, would be next to impossible. You might argue that guns are so entrenched in the American psyche that removing guns now would be impossible. I say if the will of the people is there, then anything is possible.
ReplyVote up (126)down (85)
Original comment
Since doing nothing is not the answer, I suggest an experiment - follow the Australian example for 5 years. If after 5 years, the murder rate goes up, then scrap gun control. Much better experimenting this way round, because relaxing gun control first, and if the murder rate rises, trying to remove all the guns, would be next to impossible. You might argue that guns are so entrenched in the American psyche that removing guns now would be impossible. I say if the will of the people is there, then anything is possible.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1820 days ago)
I would agree if it were possible to so easily reverse laws. The history of laws in the U.S. is once the government gets control it does not give it up easily. I can not even imagine them handing everyone back their guns if the result is more crime. Also the current muddle about what effect relatively free access to guns has had makes one thing clear, people will not agree on the significance of whatever change occurs. Like so many modern problems I think technology is the only thing which will perhaps provide a solution. The availability of non-lethal methods of self defense as effective as firearms would reduce the pro-gun lobby to a very small number. Of course in Britain the government doesn't seem to want the people to have any sort of recourse other than the police, who of course are very little use stopping crime.
ReplyVote up (103)down (98)
Original comment
I would agree if it were possible to so easily reverse laws. The history of laws in the U.S. is once the government gets control it does not give it up easily. I can not even imagine them handing everyone back their guns if the result is more crime. Also the current muddle about what effect relatively free access to guns has had makes one thing clear, people will not agree on the significance of whatever change occurs. Like so many modern problems I think technology is the only thing which will perhaps provide a solution. The availability of non-lethal methods of self defense as effective as firearms would reduce the pro-gun lobby to a very small number. Of course in Britain the government doesn't seem to want the people to have any sort of recourse other than the police, who of course are very little use stopping crime.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1820 days ago)
The Bush tax cuts had an expiry date. Why shouldn't other laws have an expiry date. There could be a referendum once the expiry date is reached - to either let the laws expire and return to how they are today, or extend for another few years if the murder rate is down. The same could be done for drugs. Legalise and tax all drugs for 5 years, then look at the data and have a referendum.
ReplyVote up (112)down (120)
Original comment
The Bush tax cuts had an expiry date. Why shouldn't other laws have an expiry date. There could be a referendum once the expiry date is reached - to either let the laws expire and return to how they are today, or extend for another few years if the murder rate is down. The same could be done for drugs. Legalise and tax all drugs for 5 years, then look at the data and have a referendum.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1820 days ago)
Referendums to change the law at the federal level are not part of the U.S. system. the founders distrusted the 'passions of the moment' and 'the fashions of the times' to produce fundamental law. There is a mechanism to change the Constitution but it requires a super-majority over a span of time. The only amendment which has ever been repealed was the prohibition of alcohol. In any case as I said, the significance of social statistics is always debatable, that should be obvious from this thread. I do like the idea of sunset clauses for laws generally though, all legislation should have to be renewed every 20 years or so or allowed to lapse.
ReplyVote up (68)down (122)
Original comment
Referendums to change the law at the federal level are not part of the U.S. system. the founders distrusted the 'passions of the moment' and 'the fashions of the times' to produce fundamental law. There is a mechanism to change the Constitution but it requires a super-majority over a span of time. The only amendment which has ever been repealed was the prohibition of alcohol. In any case as I said, the significance of social statistics is always debatable, that should be obvious from this thread. I do like the idea of sunset clauses for laws generally though, all legislation should have to be renewed every 20 years or so or allowed to lapse.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1820 days ago)
But not for people of the same ancestry. One thing the statistics seem to say is murder is largely a cultural phenomenon. The murder rate for people of European ancestry in the U.S. is only slightly higher then the average murder rate for Europeans in Europe. The murder rate in the U.S. is only so high because well over half the murders are committed by non-European minorities. The African-American (self-identified, 15%) population alone commits half the murders in the U.S. This disproportion is also true in the UK but of course your minority population is much, much lower.
ReplyVote up (69)down (133)
Original comment
But not for people of the same ancestry. One thing the statistics seem to say is murder is largely a cultural phenomenon. The murder rate for people of European ancestry in the U.S. is only slightly higher then the average murder rate for Europeans in Europe. The murder rate in the U.S. is only so high because well over half the murders are committed by non-European minorities. The African-American (self-identified, 15%) population alone commits half the murders in the U.S. This disproportion is also true in the UK but of course your minority population is much, much lower.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Submitted as a guest (1823 days ago)
You Can't be real, please...
ReplyVote up (109)down (74)
Original comment
You Can't be real, please...
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: JustSaying (1823 days ago)
Err Mexico has no control over anything!
ReplyVote up (122)down (123)
Original comment
Err Mexico has no control over anything!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: PeterLondon (1823 days ago)
The reason that Mexico has so many gun deaths is it's basically a giant drug-factory for the USA. The US has "outsourced" it's drug production, so it does not have to deal with all the associated deaths, murder, torture, mafia etc., that comes with it. 77% of all drug production in Mexico is exported to the USA. Plus at least 34% of all guns in Mexico come from the USA: LINK
ReplyVote up (90)down (133)
Original comment
The reason that Mexico has so many gun deaths is it's basically a giant drug-factory for the USA. The US has "outsourced" it's drug production, so it does not have to deal with all the associated deaths, murder, torture, mafia etc., that comes with it. 77% of all drug production in Mexico is exported to the USA. Plus at least 34% of all guns in Mexico come from the USA: LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: jaffar (1818 days ago)
So, in Canada we have a ridiculous amount of firearms, almost comparable to the US figures. Up here though, we look at the situation quite differently. Our rifles are stored in a locked cabinet, and the bullets are kept in a separate locked up area. The mentality here is not that guns protect us, it's that they are useful when you want to go hunting an animal. We don't use our firearms for self-defence, unless a bear is knocking on our door. We don't allow our citizens to walk around with semi-automatic weapons designed to kill people. There would never be any reason for us to consider having a gun that can fire dozens of bullets because we don't think about using them for killing other humans. Maybe the argument shouldn't be about gun control, but rather the initial premise that having one is going to assure your safety. 5 Americans die each day because of gun violence. To me, it's the attitude about their purpose, not the legislation of them.
ReplyVote up (103)down (133)
Original comment
So, in Canada we have a ridiculous amount of firearms, almost comparable to the US figures. Up here though, we look at the situation quite differently. Our rifles are stored in a locked cabinet, and the bullets are kept in a separate locked up area. The mentality here is not that guns protect us, it's that they are useful when you want to go hunting an animal. We don't use our firearms for self-defence, unless a bear is knocking on our door. We don't allow our citizens to walk around with semi-automatic weapons designed to kill people. There would never be any reason for us to consider having a gun that can fire dozens of bullets because we don't think about using them for killing other humans. Maybe the argument shouldn't be about gun control, but rather the initial premise that having one is going to assure your safety. 5 Americans die each day because of gun violence. To me, it's the attitude about their purpose, not the legislation of them.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1818 days ago)
Latest comment: You have a good point and I value your opinion. Thanks for sharing. In the US, our constitution states we can own guns but the purpose was to form a militia so we can overthrow the government if they become too powerful. It doesn't say we are allowed to own the guns for hunting or for self defense; however, our supreme court has reviewed cases and they have interpreted the wording and meaning of our constitution and have decided it is lawful for US citizens to own guns for self defense. Telling me that I have to lock up my gun at all times is unreasonable if I plan on using it for self defense. If someone is breaking into my house, I need quick access to the gun and the ammunition. If we have a license to carry, we can also bring our guns with us so if we are attacked on our way to work, we can defend ourselves then too. Imagine someone trying to rob you and your gun is locked in a safe at home -- doesn't do you any good there does it? So what do you do in Canada when someone threatens your life, the life of your spouse, or even the life of your child? Do you call the police and wait half an hour for them to show up or just let them kill you and let the police try to figure out what happened after the robber is gone?
ReplyVote up (77)down (144)
Original comment
Latest comment: You have a good point and I value your opinion. Thanks for sharing. In the US, our constitution states we can own guns but the purpose was to form a militia so we can overthrow the government if they become too powerful. It doesn't say we are allowed to own the guns for hunting or for self defense; however, our supreme court has reviewed cases and they have interpreted the wording and meaning of our constitution and have decided it is lawful for US citizens to own guns for self defense. Telling me that I have to lock up my gun at all times is unreasonable if I plan on using it for self defense. If someone is breaking into my house, I need quick access to the gun and the ammunition. If we have a license to carry, we can also bring our guns with us so if we are attacked on our way to work, we can defend ourselves then too. Imagine someone trying to rob you and your gun is locked in a safe at home -- doesn't do you any good there does it? So what do you do in Canada when someone threatens your life, the life of your spouse, or even the life of your child? Do you call the police and wait half an hour for them to show up or just let them kill you and let the police try to figure out what happened after the robber is gone?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1823 days ago)
I don't know what the rights and wrongs of this debate are but it seems at least likely the reason nutters choose schools for their outrages is because killing children is the most horrible thing they can think of to do. They want the world to remember them, to examine their lives and grievances. We are clearly sending a signal to every lunatic on Earth that slaughtering children is the way to get the infamy you crave. The biggest school massacre in the U.S. was with home-made bombs, Bath Michigan, in 1927, 38 people. Changing public policy because of this is almost as frightening to me as the incident is horrifying. In 356 BC a man burned down one of the seven wonders of the world, the temple of Artemis at Ephesus so his name would live forever, wisely most historians refused to mention his name in their accounts.
ReplyVote up (98)down (124)
Original comment
I don't know what the rights and wrongs of this debate are but it seems at least likely the reason nutters choose schools for their outrages is because killing children is the most horrible thing they can think of to do. They want the world to remember them, to examine their lives and grievances. We are clearly sending a signal to every lunatic on Earth that slaughtering children is the way to get the infamy you crave. The biggest school massacre in the U.S. was with home-made bombs, Bath Michigan, in 1927, 38 people. Changing public policy because of this is almost as frightening to me as the incident is horrifying. In 356 BC a man burned down one of the seven wonders of the world, the temple of Artemis at Ephesus so his name would live forever, wisely most historians refused to mention his name in their accounts.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Aussie11 (1823 days ago)
All your viewers should take a look at the Australian experience. There is a lot of good information out there in cyberspace on what happened in Australia.Shootings still happen in Australia, but they are so rare that even a non fatal drive by shooting will be on the front page of the Metropolitan Press and a lead story on TV.
ReplyVote up (137)down (177)
Original comment
All your viewers should take a look at the Australian experience. There is a lot of good information out there in cyberspace on what happened in Australia.Shootings still happen in Australia, but they are so rare that even a non fatal drive by shooting will be on the front page of the Metropolitan Press and a lead story on TV.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Is Elon Musk's huge battery in South Australia a waste of money?
Is Elon Musk's huge battery in South Australia a waste of money?
Tesla's mega-battery goes online in South Australia
Tesla's mega-battery goes online in South Australia
Elon Musk celebrates progress on world's largest battery installation
Elon Musk celebrates progress on world's largest battery installation
Giant mud crab
Giant mud crab
Jim Jefferies finds out if the Great Barrier Reef really is dying
Jim Jefferies finds out if the Great Barrier Reef really is dying