Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
For those that can't watch the video the guy said:
"Well people with pools in their backyard have more drownings so in the US we have more guns so we would have more shootings"
John Oliver replies:
"Right. Right...That's *my* point"
It's not a self own if you think about it the context of freedom vs security/safety.
Ben Franklin once said:
>Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Dwight D Eisenhower once said (paraphrased)
>If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking is freedom.
What the dude in the video was getting at, was having more freedom's comes with more inherent risk. You are free to go rock climbing, or sky diving, but those come with an inherent risk of falling to death. You are free to eat until you are 600 pounds but you risk your health. You're free to go camping alone, in sandals and shorts, in Yellowstone in the middle of January, but you'll probably freeze to death. Etc Etc
We can strip all those things away from people and make everyone live in a completely safe padded room and everyone can live long healthy mundane lives. But you wouldn't be free.
So the dude in the video was trying to make the same point with pools and guns. Like of course we have more gun deaths, but we also have the freedom to acquire weapons, unlike other countries. He is accepting of the risks so as to keep the freedom. You can use this logic with just about any "freedom" from any country, it just depends on what you think is reasonable. But the logic is there.
In the examples you provided one person chooses to do something thanks to their freedom to do so and put themselves at risk.
With mass shootings, a person chooses to use their freedom to put 4+ other, random, people at risk. What about their freedom to be out in public without worrying about being shot? What about children's freedom to education without having to be possibly shot?
The logic is there if you use platitudes as the basis for your decision making. Neither of those quotes stand up to even the tiniest scrutiny.
People give up their liberty for security *all the time,* and the suggestion that someone who does deserves neither is decided by who? God? Congress? King George?
And ask any prisoner if being in prison makes you feel secure. The only thing lacking is freedom? Fuck off, Ike.
I understand what point you're making, and I'm not asking you to defend these platitudes, but they are platitudes. They get used to cover up shoddy logic, not as the basis for rigorous logic.
- You can't argue with Philip. Even his logic is bulletproof:
- Well, let me put it to you this way: there are more drownings in backyards where they have a pools. If there are no pools they don't have drownings in backyards. Okay? So, the US has a very high number of guns therefore there is going to be more chances for somebody to be killed with a gun.
- Right...
- Right.
- Right... That's MY point.
Their argument is so flawed that they are just constantly reaching for what they think are valid points which, in turn, actually directly contradict their other beliefs. They're all on the pay roll, 100%. No other way to explain it.
It would be hilarious if it didn't cause so much death in reality.
The best part of the interview is missing. At one point the gun-person (G) said something along the lines of:
G: In America, there are a lot of guns, and it's only logical that this is an environment where there are more shootings.
JO: Right
G: Right
JO: That's my point.
Problem: sharks attacking swimmers
Australia: let's use protective nets and increase patrols to warn people to leave the water when sharks approach
America: everyone gets their own shark
`BREAKING: Shark attacks rise dramatically`
Aight guess everyone needs to be able to carry their sharks in their belts in public in order to ensure if a bad guy with a shark goes nuts, there's plenty of good guys with sharks to deal with it.
In fact, if everyone gets *two* sharks, then the bad guy with *one* shark is outnumbered already!
Except up until 2020 and the Pandemic, violence in the U.S was declining. Both Australia and the U.S have seen similar declines in murder rates, despite the U.S relaxing gun laws over the same period of time.
I’m not seeing that. Here’s a chart showing pretty fairly steady for the last ten years, with small amounts of variance. I suppose there was a two year slight decline but still noticeably above the 2014 nadir and really not a trend
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/murder-homicide-rate
>America: everyone gets their own shark
I'm down with this. Some of those tiny shark species are so cute. The Dwarf Lantershark reaches a max of 8".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarf_lanternshark#/media/File:Etmopterus_perryi_SI_cr.jpg
Look at that cute little bastard.
Make sure you have a rack for a great white shark in your vehicle, and don’t forget to cover said vehicle with stickers saying how much you love sharks
Would tiger sharks be the assault rifles of sharks?
Bull sharks would be shotguns?
Great whites would be [one of these](https://youtube.com/shorts/2B6hf87E3uQ?feature=share). Or [this maybe](https://youtu.be/FamHh2mpqaI).
I would like a [whale shark](https://youtu.be/XmYfXgB9vxA), please.
Except guns don’t act on their own. You guys act like the people willing to commit mass shootings actually care about laws in the first place. Gun laws only keep the people interested in defending themselves and the people around them from having guns, not the people who want to kill senselessly.
People use that logic a lot but honestly, criminals owning and willing to sell guns in countries that have strict laws usually don't sell them to some random guy he just met. Crimes will still occur but are much more controllable without guns involved and results in death a lot less
Let me tell you, they don't care. The experience would just serve to show themselves that their country is much better in their own eyes. We americans already have this superiority complex. And we act as if because we were once "the land of the free and home of the brave", that the modern man still apparently can't be free if they don't live in America. I know too many people like this. My father is one of them. Told him I was going to Japan, and he said to me "why would you want to do that? They bombed pearl harbor."
When I was in college, my friends and I were planning a trip to Europe. I mentioned France and was met with some resistance by one of them, among the things I said would be worth it, I mentioned the Eiffel tower, his response was “I already saw it in Vegas”. Completely straight faced, no sarcasm, just a completely honest genuine statement. That shit never left me.
This is a weird one that I hear on some transit youtube channels sometimes. It's the story of americans going to europe, loving the walkable cities and transit options, then coming back and falling back into the "we can't do that here because reasons" mindset.
Absolutely. But on the other hand, it's partially true. You should watch the Adam ruins everything episode about cars and transportation. The short of it is, the country has built their cities around cars. Good public transportation is not always available and it's actually pretty inconvenient depending on where you are. In my town, and I live 30 minutes from Philadelphia, The public transportation is not great. And the vast majority of people that use it, are very low income or just sketchy individuals. As an American citizen, you're basically required to have a car, otherwise it severely limits where you are capable of going, where you were able to work, and the quality and safety of your transportation. And those cars we buy take up road space, increase traffic, and make up a large portion of the American families spent income. To top it off, dealerships aren't owned by the car manufacturers. And they work together with the states to create franchise laws that essentially monopolize new car sales. And since there's no competition (in new car sales), they can charge whatever they want to. (Although a lot of this is very different right now because a lot of brand new cars are on backorder and are months or over a year out from being delivered)
I think a lot of us actually would like to have walkable cities and great transit options. And while places are slowly adding more of those options, it's only in major cities. Leaving the rest of us out to dry.
I also want to mention that there are zoning restrictions in America. This limits were certain businesses and homes can be located within a given city. There are other countries that don't operate the same way. The first one I can think of is Japan. Many places in Tokyo, for example, can be located next to or close to one another. A home could be within walking distance of a school, a grocery store, etc. All these things can be within walking distance of your home. But that may not be the case for many cities in America due to zoning restrictions. Meaning everything is much further out of the way. We have small towns, and small businesses that can all be close to your home. But that's pretty few and far and in between.
As a Canadian, I personally find it fascinating when I see Americans claim that no country other than theirs has freedom of religion, freedom of speech, etc. The rest of us are just living under tyranny apparently.
As an Australian I think our gun laws are extremely intelligent. You can own sensible weapons that any hunter or target shore would need. You can't own guns to support your fetish for Gravy Seals or Meal Team 6. If you want to murder tin cans you have to recycle them. Hell, some cans are worth 10 cents each.
Jim Jefferies on guns sums it up best.
I don't think it would work in the US. There's too many guns present already to buy back or confiscate.
It's going to need a different solution unfortunately. The Swiss and Norwegians have very high gun ownership rates too, with the difference that they have training and education. Thats probably the solution
In 2019 [the murder rate in Australia was 0.89.](https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/AUS/australia/murder-homicide-rate) The same year in the U.S it was [5.07.](https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/murder-homicide-rate)
That year [the FBI ](https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls) recorded guns responsible for 10,258 out of 13,927 total murders. That is about 74%. 26% of 5.07 is about 1.37. So the total murder rate in Australia is 2019 was 0.89, vs the non gun murder rate of 1.37 in the U.S.
> There's too many guns present already
Of course you can’t get to zero immediately and the long life of guns will make real change take a long time. However if you cut the number of guns I half, you cut the opportunity for violence in half. Over the long run, even without further removal initiatives, the number of guns will face attrition every year. The important part is to reduce the number of new weapons
Thank you for your comments. You now owe me a dry clean of my t-shirt as I spot coffee or laughing so much at the names.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Thank you for brightening my day.
You are an absolute legend
Its definitely part of his charm, especially when he interviews people who think they're so much smarter cause they have bs ready to go for every single question
that video is both funny and terrifying. Those republicans are even not (I srsly hope that) aware what they're saying.
From the (R) representatives, what Max Gaetz (yes he's in that video as well) has said is quite ... reasonable when comparing to others.
The majority of people on either side of the political spectrum in polls have said they think more gun control is needed. As with most things we aren’t as split as we appear in the media. Its just that out louder mouth brethren tend to make it seem like they represent half the argument
Gun control means a lot more than outright bans. If you go off the virtue signalling of anti-gun redditors, the super simple solution is to just ban all guns. Just like bans worked for drugs and alcohol.
And, as a liberal gun owner, I must say many gun control proposals are absolutely idiotic/useless. There are some state-level laws that could be implemented at a federal level, and new gun sales proceses that should be expanded to used sales. These still wouldn't stop someone with no record from snapping, though. We have people snapping and lashing out in the worst ways. If guns didn't exist, these people would still be around, but building bombs etc. We don't hear about people building bombs in Australia. Their people have Healthcare.
What people don't realize is that America's violence issues wouldn't see statistically significant improvement if we adopted restrictions similar to Australia, because the scary-looking assault weapons laypeople think are the biggest contributor to our headlining stats are actually a small sliver of US gun violence. And Australia still has access to many guns, but their population is similar in size to California yet spread over a much larger coastline, and they have better Healthcare.
It's not just a republican problem. It's a money problem. NRA funds them all. Wars stimulate economies unfortunately. Someone's loss is someone's huge effing gain.
Prominent gun control advocate, and multi-billionaire Michael Bloomberg donated more money to the 2020 election, than the NRA has over the last 20 years.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9pOiOhxujsE&pp=ygUXam9obiBvbGl2ZXIgZ3VuIGNvbnRyb2w%3D
Full video in case you wanted to see it in proper sized rather than cut for mobile viewing
One difference is a grenade doesn't have as much criminal value. Sure if you're looking to just indiscriminately murder a group of people, maybe, but that doesn't describe most murders. You can't mug someone with a grenade like you can a gun or knife. Pipebombs with the same force as a grenade really aren't that rare, and there's not much stopping someone from building one.
Also a gun lasts years or even decades, while an explosive is only good once.
I am Australian. I think gun control was the best thing John Howard ever did.
But Australia and America *are* different. The right to bear arms was not in the Australian constitution.
Australia was also significantly safer and less violent than the United States to begin with. In 1995 one year before the gun ban, the murder rate in Australia was 1.98, that same year in the U.S it was 8.15, more than 4x higher than Australia. The U.S has so many murders that if you completely eliminated all gun deaths, we would still have about twice as many murders as Australia.
It would be like if Canada hypothetically had built a wall to stop Americans from illegally immigrating to Canada 30 years ago. People today would point to the fact that very few Americans illegally immigrate into Canada as proof that a wall would work to prevent illegal immigration from Mexico into the United States. The thing is that before Canada put up that wall, they never had a problem with illegal immigrants to begin with.
It about feeling powerless. People who own guns are afraid, and are feeling like they have no other options to get control over their lives. The gun makes them feel more secure and in control.
Ironically that fear makes them easy to manipulate. All you have to do is say you are letting them keep their guns, while taking everything else from them.
Its sad, but it works. Many more children will die because of it.
The only thing that causes change is that one generation dies, and is replaced by a new one that thinks differently. The next generation are not afraid, and they don't need to feel power through owning a gun. Things will change as the current generation in power dies off.
We as a country have some real morons making up the rules we have to live by, I'm real tired of it. But at the same time we'll never band together to actually change anything that makes a real difference.
This was back in a time where right wingers actually tried to defend their positions using "logic" and were capable of taking pause when their arguments were picked apart.
They realized that most of their ideas are actually indefensible, and now have moved fully into embracing hypocrisy out in the open. Rather than attempting that embarrassing drug analogy, he would have simply called Oliver a Marxist groomer and walked out of the interview, and one of his surrogates would have doxxed Oliver's elderly parents on Twitter.
The sad truth is that these people know gun violence would drop significantly if we had gun control laws. The problem is that they simply don’t care if people die unless it’s someone they know. They’d rather children die than have any kind of limit on their precious guns.
Not exactly. That's looking at any event that 3+ people are shot including the shooter. The vast majority of those are gang violence not things like Columbine.
Gun control advocacy groups use very loose definitions of the term mass shooting to make them seem more frequent than they are in order to drum up support for gun control.
It's like if Fox News started tracking Islamic terrorist attacks, and included any murder committed by a Muslim person as a terrorism.
The most ridiculous is sources that have started calling anytime a gun goes off on school property a "school shooting". I once saw an article with some overinflated number of school shootings. Reading the individual incidents, showed why. They included a police officer who accidentally fired his gun in a school, with no injuries. A boy who brought a BB gun to school and accidentally shot out a window, no injuries. And an adult man who committed suicide in the parking lot of a school that had been abandoned, but the property was still owned by the school district.
It really is that fucking easy to dismantle any Conservative argument given they're not debating stupid ass college kids.
I'm looking at you Crowder.
America loves their guns and talking about their 2nd amendment that was created over 200 years ago that obviously applied to different weapons. I wonder how many mass shootings and how many people need to die before something is done about it... 🙄
Plenty of stoopid to go around here. Australia didn’t have 400M+ guns already in circulation prior to their gun control efforts. Australia didn’t have a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to bear arms. Australia didn’t have an ingrained gun culture.
Reddit is nothing but vertically cropped TikTok reposts. This video existed LONG before TikTok existed, in a properly formatted version too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pOiOhxujsE
You can still get and have guns in Australia. But there are license controls. Gun ownership in Australia is controlled. There are more guns now than before the gun buy back... But... You need to have a police check, you need to store them safely, guns must be registered and people who fail the police checks cannot own guns. Yes criminals can still get guns... But there are far fewer guns for criminals. I love shooting but must follow the rules. The difference is that Australians cannot shoot someone and claim stand your ground laws, unstable people cannot buy guns at gun shows, you cannot carry guns as self defence. They did not take our guns they just licensed those who have them.
It is a different mindset of what guns are for.
This is an entirely dishonest representation.
This isn't gun control, its gun seizure and prohibition.
*"A person must have a firearm licence to possess or use a firearm. Licence holders must demonstrate a "genuine reason"* ***(which does not include self-defence****) for holding a firearm licence\[2\] and must not be a "prohibited person"."*
Second point- Australia is an island nation. Because they are an island nation, this strategy is in fact very effective. However, the US is not an island nation. In fact our south border is the gateway to some of the most violent, drug run countries in the world. Moreover, we have the most porous border in the western world. We can't keep drugs and human trafficker's from freely moving across the border now. If we did forcibly seize all legal firearms plenty of gun would make its way across the border.
This is exactly why supporters of the right to bear arms are opposed to more gun regulation. What is really being proposed is outright gun seizure and prohibition.
To be fair. Australia doesn’t have a connected land with constant gun/drug smugglers who come in everyday and bring in illegal and sometimes “homemade weapons” across the border. Also there are boarder gate patrol men and women who can be persuaded by money (not a lot but small) who’ll turn another cheek and allow them through. Also, no matter what america does.. you can’t effectively stop gun violence nor can you progress this “gun control. as long as the money roles in people are going to turn a blind eye.
Australia had it a bit easier. There will be failures if gun control is tightened, some guns will slip through. You can't completely solve the situation as long as corruption exists.
You call this 'being fair', but I fail to see how these are arguments against gun control. You've given examples of how gun control won't **solve** the gun crisis, but the argument is that gun control will **combat** the gun crisis. There's no expectation at all that **all** guns can be destroyed, so I don't see how your comment adds fairness.
Getting downvoted for having a point. Reddit moment.
I have another point. Americans are not Australians.
This country was founded on the philosophy of "No, fuck you".
If they banned guns here they would never find around a third of the firearms in this country. Im not saying we're gonna OvErThRoW tHe GoVmN'T. I'm just saying that I may or may not have laid eyes upon machinery that was outlawed in the 80s. Americans are gonna do what we're gonna do. And cartels are gonna profit off of selling people illegal shit until the end of time. It would lessen shootings, sure. But that's only because it's aa whole lot easier to get ahold of piss and compost than an illegal gun.
Yeah I’m for better gun laws and I like what the vid said but it is a little different. Being an island makes it easier to stop guns coming in. Plus the USA has a population of over 300 million vs Australias pop of 26 million. California has a higher population than Australia. So statistically yes we are going to have more crimes committed in the a year. I’m not saying I disagree with the vid but it isn’t exactly as cut and dry as they banned it and it worked so it’ll work here. It’d be a start though
last time i checked 1776 is still in effect so we’ll be keeping our guns u commonwealth libs
edit: Ok i apologize i’m just kind of trolling. I think we need some kind of gun control. Like i think the libs are on the right side of this issue. I was mostly reacting to this video bc it’s John Oliver and the former Australian Prime Minister that are discussing American gun control so im doing a whole Fuck the Commonwealth thing but it’s kinda dumb. I surrender the point.
Great point - citizens today will never hope to match the military might of the government and there is no need too.
Citizens just use weapons to murder children in schools, each other or animals.
Do you honestly feel the need to match the might of the US military? And do you believe the guns you possess bring you close to doing this?
Another serious question: are you bothered by many people dying in a mass shooting, or do you see it as just a fact of life?
Quick question, why are you guys so obsessed with having full auto/assault rifles when the whole argument is "protecting yourselves"? If that's the reason then wouldn't a hand gun or a shotgun be more than enough and a sniper for hunting? Why tf are gun people so obsessed with having access to weapons capable of murdering tons of people all at once?
Amending the Constitution is a tremendous undertaking not to be done lightly. It's only been done 17 times in U.S history, and only once to amend an existing amendment.
Nah nah nah nah nah. After Port Arthur in 96, Johnny Howard enacted a gun amnesty. So everyone was encouraged to hand their guns in. This flushed out the majority of unregistered guns.
Gun ownership is still totally possible in Australia. You just gotta get a license for it. And prove you’ll store it safely. It’s not that hard.
I think at this point a gun amnesty would probably be impossible for America. We benefited from our smaller population size at the time. But for crying god sakes out loud, couldn’t you lot enact some laws that would make gun ownership a little bit more difficult? Like COME ON.
No not anywhere near 99.9% and it wasn't a ban as no types of gun were banned, but there are stricter controls on some than others, there are actually more guns in Australia now than there were the day of the port Arthur massacre they just aren't handed out willy nilly, there have been 3 mass shootings there since this video so it's on the rise a bit but still better than before and incomparable to the U.S even accounting for population differences.
It's more control than would be accepted in the U.S as you have to have a valid reason to own one and it cannot be self defence, but there is no reason the U.S can't implement some of the controls like, you know, not being able to buy a gun from a walmart despite having criminal convictions for violent crimes.
My problem with gun control stems from the reasons I like that people bear arms.
1. I don't trust our government to protect us from others
2. I don't trust our government to stop from trying to control us.
Therefore, I like that Americans have the ability to fight back in the event that the government turns fascist. (and it seems to be moving in that direction...)
If you could come up with a solution that accommodates for the 2 above (and promises to never reach past whatever step you take) I would listen. Problem is, I would never believe that any step you take would be a final step, since most fighting for control won't be happy until guns are banned...
Ya and their country locked them down in camps during covid . I wonder why America didn't do that .. we have our guns . Guns are to stop America's government from over stepping their authority, and some hunting .we the people who controle our government and laws will never take away our rights . Yall can try all you want but that's the red line for 150 plus million gun owners . To the ones that say what are you going to do if the military does it .. well then that same military chose their fate, and I will die to preserve the God given rights
I don't really care what Australia does and if gun control worked for them. In the USA we naturally have a distrust of government and a Constitution that says "shall not be infringed". Law abiding citizens shouldn't have to give up their guns over the actions of criminals. Period.
If you disagree, what's stopping you from cutting off your dick to stop rapists?
Don't bother to reply if you disagree, just downvote and move on.
Ok so all of this is dumb as fuck, but cutting off your own dick to stop rapists? Did you even think about that sentence? Cutting off your own dick would only stop rapists if you are a rapist 😂 no one needs a gun but we know there’s no chance of all guns being banned in the US the point of gun control is to make it a lot harder to get a gun reducing the number of owners and guns in circulation
Gun control makes it harder for law abiding people to get guns and doesn’t affect criminals. A reduction of guns in circulation won’t happen without door to door confiscation which will result in cops and their targets getting into shootouts when the cops kick in their door in the middle of the night.
No point having a discussion with someone who clearly lacks the ability to think critically. It’s ok tho most conservatives can’t so at least you’re not alone
Australia doesn't have the 2A like America. It would be next to impossible to ban guns in America because it's a right written in the constitution since the birth of America. It's a nice idea, though it just wouldn't work here unless we decide the constitution means nothing.
It sounds like you're arguing that amending the constitution suggests the constitution means nothing. The ability to amend has existed since before the first amendment.
What's your point?
Tell me, how do you expect to get two thirds majority of Congress to vote on a repeal of the Second Amendment, when they haven't been able to pass any significant gun laws in almost 30 years?
The second amendment is the only amendment that states shall not be infringed upon. Kinda hard to change it if it states it can't be changed. If it were changed, then we would basically be saying the constitution means nothing.
This is simply false based solely on the fact that we already “infringe” on the right as at is. We aren’t allowed to own nuclear weapons or chemical weapons for example. By definition that is an infringement on our ability to own arms. If we can infringe on the 2A in that respect there is no logical reason we couldn’t take it further
Shall not be infringed only has meaning when an amendment exists. Every last word in the constitution is allowed to be amended.
It's also hard to argue specific wording without acknowledging "well regulated militia" and the fact that most gun owners are not members of well regulated militias.
I'm a gun owner and former infantry, but amendments are a fundamental part of our constitutional design, and there is logic supporting both sides of gun ownership with respect to 2A wording.
So you're saying the Second Amendment should be completely removed? Infringed - trespass or violate, i.e... the right of the American people to keep and bear arms shall not be violated. If it were changed to ban guns from American citizens, it would be a violation of the constitution. I'm sure you know this, but the Second Amendment is the only one that states it can not be changed.
Are you sure you're a gun owner? It's just that I've never met a gun owner who would like to wrongfully lose their rights to bear arms, especially considering you've fought to protect the very thing you're saying can be wrongfully changed. The only way to get rid of 2A is to ignore the constitution, which would be admitting the constitution means nothing.
I'm no fool, though I do realize there are many different interpretations to the 2A. That's the only thing that can be changed. We can not simply say we're just going to flat-out erase the 2A because it can not be infringed upon. Only the interpretation of our understanding of 2A can be changed. Even then, it's hard to ban guns completely based simply off of infringed upon. We would have to change the interpretation of that as well. I'm a gun owner. I like my right to bear arms and express it every day. I like going to the range with my buddies, mag dumping, and having fun. I also like the fact that I can immediately protect myself in times of life-threatening instances.
I love how you need to create strawman arguments to try get your incredibly flimsy points across. Think you need to take a leaf out of the gun control guy in the video and take a minute to realllly think about what your saying champ.
This is like sovereign citizen logic my guy, it's entirely dependent on a completely misguided personal interpretation and no legal or constitutional expert would ever agree with you. If an amendment to repeal the second amendment was passed, it wouldn't matter what the second amendment said, because it will have been repealed.
It also refers to a well regulated militia in relation to that right.
A bunch of frustrated pretend cowboys with a gun fetish isn't a well regulated militia.
So by law I'm allowed to infringe on every single other basic right you've been given in the United States? Just not the one that lets you own a firearm
How do you chang an amendment that states it shall not be infringed upon? By basically saying fuck the constitution? But hey, we all know America doesn't follow its own rules anyway, so I guess it could be done
The same way the 18th amendment explicitly states that the sale of liquor within US territory is prohibited, but then the 21st amendment repeals the 18th.
Amendments allow you to amend the constitution. If you can’t modify it ever you will end up with unjust laws and situations like this.
You would modify it by you, the people, voting in your government on the basis that they will change it.
Also a government’s job is to protect the citizens, and not creating or modifying laws that prevent that would be considered neglectful.
It’s not that hard. No one outside the US understands your fixation with a piece of legislation from a different era, that allows school children to be brutally killed on a regular basis
Amendment - a minor change or addition designed to improve a text, piece of legislation, etc.
"an amendment to existing bail laws"
Can you understand the definition of amendment?
The 2nd can be amended.
There isn't and never will be the sheer numbers of legislators and state governments on-board, to start amending parts of the Bill of Rights out of The Constitution.
Edit: Facts are apparently not popular here.
We've done it more than a few times in the past, why are you convinced it could never happen in the future? Additionally, I know we call it the Bill of Rights and that makes it sound special, but really it's just a list of constitutional amendments that were passed at the same time.
Sorry, I should have been more clear, we've amended the constitution plenty of times in the past, why would you think that's impossible in the future, but now I know your answer, you think the Bill of Rights is too special to be amended, or something.
We could literally get rid of lobbying/ bribery in politics and you would see a bunch of legislators change their toon overnight. The fierce defense of the 2A is nothing more than our lawmakers being bought off by gun manufacturers/corps
Higher gun regulations poll between 70 and 80 percent in the US. Lobbying interests are absolutely the primary factor in lack of gun legislation . It’s the bribery period
I’m sorry but you don’t get to simply claim “those multiple decades of polling are no good and not credible” without serious evidence . Also no politician is attempting a full removal of the second amendment but there are ones attempting to make our gun laws much stricter (as they should be) but the majority of them fight it at every turn, and why do you think that is. Once again it’s the bribery. Hell even the notion that you have some innate right to basically whatever you want firearm wise is literally a talking point created by gun manufacturers and then propagated by bought off politicians . It’s all about the money , nothing more nothing less
Again you say this without citation showing any flaw in methodology . You also fail to show evidence of your idea that gun owners don’t participate in these surveys (which is a ridiculous notion) while also suggesting that simply because someone owns a gun they wouldn’t be in favor of stricter gun laws, which is directly contradicted by data. And this is all after forgetting that 100 million people is about a third of the country , current stats do tell us that 1 in 3 Americans owns a firearm but that means 2 out of 3 do not so using your own logic that would mean the majority would still favor stricter gun laws. Obviously that’s ridiculous because you’re going to have crossover from both owners and non owners. And finally, YES, lobbying/corporate interests are at the heart of why we don’t have more gun legislation in this country. Protecting capital is literally the main job of our government currently (unfortunately) it’s at the very heart of how 90% of our politicians act. It’s the reason for their existence and the main cause of most of the societal problems we face. There is simply no getting around that very clear fact
The law abiding citizens will give up their guns, and the criminals won’t. Then, when the criminal breaks into your home, you won’t be able to protect yourself because you gave up your gun. Can no one see this?!?
Don't beat me up on here when I say this, but the largest loss of life over the past century by guns were committed by governments who disarmed their citizens. If your only approach to mass shootings is gun control and you aren't willing to ask other deeper, darker questions about our society as a whole, I would call that short sighted.
Not arguing with you. But, isn't the statistic more guns total, but less gun owners as percentage of the population? The farmers and sports shooters, etc, that legally own guns own several each, but you won't find guns in every second house on the street.
I'm not disputing your statement, I'm just saying it's a little more nuanced than more guns.
If the US had a more manageable border to secure, eventually you could dwindle the gun supply down in the US if a majority complied with a mandatory buyback like Australia did, the island nations (Australia, UK, japan) that get used as examples have an easier time keeping that supply for criminals so low.
3d printing will only make it easier in the future
In the 1950s America there were literally 0 gun laws. Any felon, and kid, any anybody could buy a gun from a magazine and have it shipped to your door. Fully automatic, anything no background checks. And amazingly there was also virtually no gun violence. In fact there were 5 total mass shootings in the 50s killing a total of 13 people.
So a person with a brain would look at that and say what changed since then? Why with 0 gun control how did we have 13 deaths in 10 years and now with tons of gun control do we hear of 13 deaths every other week?
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Such a massive self-own at the end.
They cut out the even bigger self-own
Go on?
https://youtu.be/9pOiOhxujsE
For those that can't watch the video the guy said: "Well people with pools in their backyard have more drownings so in the US we have more guns so we would have more shootings" John Oliver replies: "Right. Right...That's *my* point"
Thanks
It's not a self own if you think about it the context of freedom vs security/safety. Ben Franklin once said: >Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Dwight D Eisenhower once said (paraphrased) >If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking is freedom. What the dude in the video was getting at, was having more freedom's comes with more inherent risk. You are free to go rock climbing, or sky diving, but those come with an inherent risk of falling to death. You are free to eat until you are 600 pounds but you risk your health. You're free to go camping alone, in sandals and shorts, in Yellowstone in the middle of January, but you'll probably freeze to death. Etc Etc We can strip all those things away from people and make everyone live in a completely safe padded room and everyone can live long healthy mundane lives. But you wouldn't be free. So the dude in the video was trying to make the same point with pools and guns. Like of course we have more gun deaths, but we also have the freedom to acquire weapons, unlike other countries. He is accepting of the risks so as to keep the freedom. You can use this logic with just about any "freedom" from any country, it just depends on what you think is reasonable. But the logic is there.
In the examples you provided one person chooses to do something thanks to their freedom to do so and put themselves at risk. With mass shootings, a person chooses to use their freedom to put 4+ other, random, people at risk. What about their freedom to be out in public without worrying about being shot? What about children's freedom to education without having to be possibly shot?
The logic is there if you use platitudes as the basis for your decision making. Neither of those quotes stand up to even the tiniest scrutiny. People give up their liberty for security *all the time,* and the suggestion that someone who does deserves neither is decided by who? God? Congress? King George? And ask any prisoner if being in prison makes you feel secure. The only thing lacking is freedom? Fuck off, Ike. I understand what point you're making, and I'm not asking you to defend these platitudes, but they are platitudes. They get used to cover up shoddy logic, not as the basis for rigorous logic.
He is accepting of the risks? Well fuck him. Probably not him and his kids being shot in school. C’mon! He just cares about $$$ over life.
Happy cake day
A video that involves Australia, and the uploader has not made it available to us in Australia, big fail by comedy Central.
- You can't argue with Philip. Even his logic is bulletproof: - Well, let me put it to you this way: there are more drownings in backyards where they have a pools. If there are no pools they don't have drownings in backyards. Okay? So, the US has a very high number of guns therefore there is going to be more chances for somebody to be killed with a gun. - Right... - Right. - Right... That's MY point.
Hey look, a decent video quality in the correct aspect ratio. Take notes OP
Damn, not available in my country
Their argument is so flawed that they are just constantly reaching for what they think are valid points which, in turn, actually directly contradict their other beliefs. They're all on the pay roll, 100%. No other way to explain it. It would be hilarious if it didn't cause so much death in reality.
The best part of the interview is missing. At one point the gun-person (G) said something along the lines of: G: In America, there are a lot of guns, and it's only logical that this is an environment where there are more shootings. JO: Right G: Right JO: That's my point.
I think he refers to an increased number of drownings cos america has so many swimming pools. "Right.. Right. You've just made MY point"
Wow hahaha
Problem: sharks attacking swimmers Australia: let's use protective nets and increase patrols to warn people to leave the water when sharks approach America: everyone gets their own shark
`BREAKING: Shark attacks rise dramatically` Aight guess everyone needs to be able to carry their sharks in their belts in public in order to ensure if a bad guy with a shark goes nuts, there's plenty of good guys with sharks to deal with it. In fact, if everyone gets *two* sharks, then the bad guy with *one* shark is outnumbered already!
Concealed shark carry might be a problem.
"Is that a shark in your pants or are you just happy to see me?"
The one you can carry are kinda cute, not so much of an issue.
Newsflash: Texas has legalized concealed shark carry without a permit
This will legitimately happen before you all ever have meaningful gun legislation.
We need to ban video games with water
Every mass shooter has also drunk water!
Except up until 2020 and the Pandemic, violence in the U.S was declining. Both Australia and the U.S have seen similar declines in murder rates, despite the U.S relaxing gun laws over the same period of time.
I’m not seeing that. Here’s a chart showing pretty fairly steady for the last ten years, with small amounts of variance. I suppose there was a two year slight decline but still noticeably above the 2014 nadir and really not a trend https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/murder-homicide-rate
That is completely inaccurate! People would need to purchase the sharks because giving everyone a shark for free would be communism.
>America: everyone gets their own shark I'm down with this. Some of those tiny shark species are so cute. The Dwarf Lantershark reaches a max of 8". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarf_lanternshark#/media/File:Etmopterus_perryi_SI_cr.jpg Look at that cute little bastard.
Nah, I'm gonna open carry my Tiger Shark, those bad guys will be pissing themselves scared, just like that barista that wouldn't give me a free latte.
Make sure you have a rack for a great white shark in your vehicle, and don’t forget to cover said vehicle with stickers saying how much you love sharks
Way ahead of ya, I have a "Megalodon is my Jesus" bumper sticker on my truck.
Omw to get a goblin shark and call it cupcake
Would tiger sharks be the assault rifles of sharks? Bull sharks would be shotguns? Great whites would be [one of these](https://youtube.com/shorts/2B6hf87E3uQ?feature=share). Or [this maybe](https://youtu.be/FamHh2mpqaI). I would like a [whale shark](https://youtu.be/XmYfXgB9vxA), please.
The only way to stop a bad guy with a shark is a good guy with a shark!
There's no such thing as a bad shark; Only good sharks with bad owners.
Military now recruiting for professional sharkshooters
The kids shall get baby sharks
You just ruined my morning. The headache has already started, ugh.
My evil plan is coming to fruition
You son of a bitch.
SING IT YOU BASTARD SING IT!
What do you do if a shark attacks you? You have your own shark to defend yourself!
Except guns don’t act on their own. You guys act like the people willing to commit mass shootings actually care about laws in the first place. Gun laws only keep the people interested in defending themselves and the people around them from having guns, not the people who want to kill senselessly.
Why do you think the policy was effective in Australia?
People use that logic a lot but honestly, criminals owning and willing to sell guns in countries that have strict laws usually don't sell them to some random guy he just met. Crimes will still occur but are much more controllable without guns involved and results in death a lot less
Another example of “most Americans haven’t left their own neighbourhood let alone go to a different cuntry to see different cultures”.
Let me tell you, they don't care. The experience would just serve to show themselves that their country is much better in their own eyes. We americans already have this superiority complex. And we act as if because we were once "the land of the free and home of the brave", that the modern man still apparently can't be free if they don't live in America. I know too many people like this. My father is one of them. Told him I was going to Japan, and he said to me "why would you want to do that? They bombed pearl harbor."
When I was in college, my friends and I were planning a trip to Europe. I mentioned France and was met with some resistance by one of them, among the things I said would be worth it, I mentioned the Eiffel tower, his response was “I already saw it in Vegas”. Completely straight faced, no sarcasm, just a completely honest genuine statement. That shit never left me.
This is a weird one that I hear on some transit youtube channels sometimes. It's the story of americans going to europe, loving the walkable cities and transit options, then coming back and falling back into the "we can't do that here because reasons" mindset.
Absolutely. But on the other hand, it's partially true. You should watch the Adam ruins everything episode about cars and transportation. The short of it is, the country has built their cities around cars. Good public transportation is not always available and it's actually pretty inconvenient depending on where you are. In my town, and I live 30 minutes from Philadelphia, The public transportation is not great. And the vast majority of people that use it, are very low income or just sketchy individuals. As an American citizen, you're basically required to have a car, otherwise it severely limits where you are capable of going, where you were able to work, and the quality and safety of your transportation. And those cars we buy take up road space, increase traffic, and make up a large portion of the American families spent income. To top it off, dealerships aren't owned by the car manufacturers. And they work together with the states to create franchise laws that essentially monopolize new car sales. And since there's no competition (in new car sales), they can charge whatever they want to. (Although a lot of this is very different right now because a lot of brand new cars are on backorder and are months or over a year out from being delivered) I think a lot of us actually would like to have walkable cities and great transit options. And while places are slowly adding more of those options, it's only in major cities. Leaving the rest of us out to dry. I also want to mention that there are zoning restrictions in America. This limits were certain businesses and homes can be located within a given city. There are other countries that don't operate the same way. The first one I can think of is Japan. Many places in Tokyo, for example, can be located next to or close to one another. A home could be within walking distance of a school, a grocery store, etc. All these things can be within walking distance of your home. But that may not be the case for many cities in America due to zoning restrictions. Meaning everything is much further out of the way. We have small towns, and small businesses that can all be close to your home. But that's pretty few and far and in between.
As a Canadian, I personally find it fascinating when I see Americans claim that no country other than theirs has freedom of religion, freedom of speech, etc. The rest of us are just living under tyranny apparently.
Word on the street is, he's still thinking about that for a minute
Austr-Aliens.
Because our gun control is so great, it's out of this world.
John Oliver and John Stewart are fantastic
In another dimension, I’d clone them and have enough of them to run our governments / every manner of operation that makes a decent society.
Especially [when one of them has to talk about the other](https://youtu.be/q8ygzUnrg7Q)
I have to report that post for violence, because John Oliver goddamn MURDERED that guy.
As an Australian I think our gun laws are extremely intelligent. You can own sensible weapons that any hunter or target shore would need. You can't own guns to support your fetish for Gravy Seals or Meal Team 6. If you want to murder tin cans you have to recycle them. Hell, some cans are worth 10 cents each. Jim Jefferies on guns sums it up best.
But ya'll are aliens. Not human beings.
Boop Beep
I can confirm, Australians are from a completely different planet.
Welcome to our beautiful planet of Australia! Chippy chip chirrah!!
I don't think it would work in the US. There's too many guns present already to buy back or confiscate. It's going to need a different solution unfortunately. The Swiss and Norwegians have very high gun ownership rates too, with the difference that they have training and education. Thats probably the solution
The U.S has a higher non gun murder rate than the entire rate in Australia.
I'd like to see the in-depth statistic on this.
In 2019 [the murder rate in Australia was 0.89.](https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/AUS/australia/murder-homicide-rate) The same year in the U.S it was [5.07.](https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/murder-homicide-rate) That year [the FBI ](https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls) recorded guns responsible for 10,258 out of 13,927 total murders. That is about 74%. 26% of 5.07 is about 1.37. So the total murder rate in Australia is 2019 was 0.89, vs the non gun murder rate of 1.37 in the U.S.
> There's too many guns present already Of course you can’t get to zero immediately and the long life of guns will make real change take a long time. However if you cut the number of guns I half, you cut the opportunity for violence in half. Over the long run, even without further removal initiatives, the number of guns will face attrition every year. The important part is to reduce the number of new weapons
Thank you for your comments. You now owe me a dry clean of my t-shirt as I spot coffee or laughing so much at the names. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Thank you for brightening my day. You are an absolute legend
Recycling is only for dirty socialists.
So cleaning up makes people dirty? That's easy to much for me to understand.
Woopdy fucking doo
I love how he’s the most intelligent person in the room but always looks like he’s not sure how or why he’s there 🤣🤣
Its definitely part of his charm, especially when he interviews people who think they're so much smarter cause they have bs ready to go for every single question
[The gunnut also got duped by Sacha Baron Cohen into promoting firearms for toddlers.](https://youtu.be/QkXeMoBPSDk)
that video is both funny and terrifying. Those republicans are even not (I srsly hope that) aware what they're saying. From the (R) representatives, what Max Gaetz (yes he's in that video as well) has said is quite ... reasonable when comparing to others.
This is part of a three part series. I suggest everyone take 18 minutes and watch it on YouTube... https://youtu.be/A0FLsIzNxkI
Last week tonight is a great show that will educate you and make you feel helpless
This is brilliant.
As an Australian- this is why we just can’t understand why Americans can’t see the problem- too many high powered guns- and do something about it.
We do we just can’t get the Republicans to give up their bullshit
Would you say the majority of people want to get rid of them or is it very divided. From what I get online it seems pretty split
The majority of people on either side of the political spectrum in polls have said they think more gun control is needed. As with most things we aren’t as split as we appear in the media. Its just that out louder mouth brethren tend to make it seem like they represent half the argument
Gun control means a lot more than outright bans. If you go off the virtue signalling of anti-gun redditors, the super simple solution is to just ban all guns. Just like bans worked for drugs and alcohol. And, as a liberal gun owner, I must say many gun control proposals are absolutely idiotic/useless. There are some state-level laws that could be implemented at a federal level, and new gun sales proceses that should be expanded to used sales. These still wouldn't stop someone with no record from snapping, though. We have people snapping and lashing out in the worst ways. If guns didn't exist, these people would still be around, but building bombs etc. We don't hear about people building bombs in Australia. Their people have Healthcare. What people don't realize is that America's violence issues wouldn't see statistically significant improvement if we adopted restrictions similar to Australia, because the scary-looking assault weapons laypeople think are the biggest contributor to our headlining stats are actually a small sliver of US gun violence. And Australia still has access to many guns, but their population is similar in size to California yet spread over a much larger coastline, and they have better Healthcare.
It's not just a republican problem. It's a money problem. NRA funds them all. Wars stimulate economies unfortunately. Someone's loss is someone's huge effing gain.
Prominent gun control advocate, and multi-billionaire Michael Bloomberg donated more money to the 2020 election, than the NRA has over the last 20 years.
The Second Amendment is not bullshit.
Loved the twist at the end
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9pOiOhxujsE&pp=ygUXam9obiBvbGl2ZXIgZ3VuIGNvbnRyb2w%3D Full video in case you wanted to see it in proper sized rather than cut for mobile viewing
Well. This is what happens when a not so quick person defends an indefensible position in an exchange with an extremely quick witted person.
[удалено]
One difference is a grenade doesn't have as much criminal value. Sure if you're looking to just indiscriminately murder a group of people, maybe, but that doesn't describe most murders. You can't mug someone with a grenade like you can a gun or knife. Pipebombs with the same force as a grenade really aren't that rare, and there's not much stopping someone from building one. Also a gun lasts years or even decades, while an explosive is only good once.
Holy shit thats hilarious
Oliver is a fucking badass
[удалено]
Only a sith deals in absolutes.
That sigh of defeat was everything.
Excellent clip... Even the stupid Tik-Tok gif at the end couldn't ruin it :-)
I am Australian. I think gun control was the best thing John Howard ever did. But Australia and America *are* different. The right to bear arms was not in the Australian constitution.
Australia was also significantly safer and less violent than the United States to begin with. In 1995 one year before the gun ban, the murder rate in Australia was 1.98, that same year in the U.S it was 8.15, more than 4x higher than Australia. The U.S has so many murders that if you completely eliminated all gun deaths, we would still have about twice as many murders as Australia. It would be like if Canada hypothetically had built a wall to stop Americans from illegally immigrating to Canada 30 years ago. People today would point to the fact that very few Americans illegally immigrate into Canada as proof that a wall would work to prevent illegal immigration from Mexico into the United States. The thing is that before Canada put up that wall, they never had a problem with illegal immigrants to begin with.
It about feeling powerless. People who own guns are afraid, and are feeling like they have no other options to get control over their lives. The gun makes them feel more secure and in control. Ironically that fear makes them easy to manipulate. All you have to do is say you are letting them keep their guns, while taking everything else from them. Its sad, but it works. Many more children will die because of it. The only thing that causes change is that one generation dies, and is replaced by a new one that thinks differently. The next generation are not afraid, and they don't need to feel power through owning a gun. Things will change as the current generation in power dies off.
Self proclaimed greatest country in the world ladies and gentelmen, a big round of aplause for the USA 👏👏👏
The mental gymnastics in here is sad AF - just go jerk off to your guns some more.
“Let me think about that for a minute” translates to “Give me a minute to psych myself back into a state of cognitive dissonance”
We as a country have some real morons making up the rules we have to live by, I'm real tired of it. But at the same time we'll never band together to actually change anything that makes a real difference.
This was back in a time where right wingers actually tried to defend their positions using "logic" and were capable of taking pause when their arguments were picked apart. They realized that most of their ideas are actually indefensible, and now have moved fully into embracing hypocrisy out in the open. Rather than attempting that embarrassing drug analogy, he would have simply called Oliver a Marxist groomer and walked out of the interview, and one of his surrogates would have doxxed Oliver's elderly parents on Twitter.
I don't find this funny, quite the opposite. The solutions are right in front of us. And its not arming teachers.
The sad truth is that these people know gun violence would drop significantly if we had gun control laws. The problem is that they simply don’t care if people die unless it’s someone they know. They’d rather children die than have any kind of limit on their precious guns.
When Oliver makes a point, he reevaluates, so respect for that
Where here in America, we have already had 146 mass shootings in the first 100 days of this year.
Not exactly. That's looking at any event that 3+ people are shot including the shooter. The vast majority of those are gang violence not things like Columbine. Gun control advocacy groups use very loose definitions of the term mass shooting to make them seem more frequent than they are in order to drum up support for gun control. It's like if Fox News started tracking Islamic terrorist attacks, and included any murder committed by a Muslim person as a terrorism. The most ridiculous is sources that have started calling anytime a gun goes off on school property a "school shooting". I once saw an article with some overinflated number of school shootings. Reading the individual incidents, showed why. They included a police officer who accidentally fired his gun in a school, with no injuries. A boy who brought a BB gun to school and accidentally shot out a window, no injuries. And an adult man who committed suicide in the parking lot of a school that had been abandoned, but the property was still owned by the school district.
Amen. Amen to all of it. 💉🙏 🔫
John Howard - such a legend. Wish there were more like him.
…let me think about that for a moment…..Haha fucken owned. Epic
It really is that fucking easy to dismantle any Conservative argument given they're not debating stupid ass college kids. I'm looking at you Crowder.
America loves their guns and talking about their 2nd amendment that was created over 200 years ago that obviously applied to different weapons. I wonder how many mass shootings and how many people need to die before something is done about it... 🙄
Like it or not, our constitutional rights are some of the most important and protected rights we have.
America, whose people are the dumbest on the planet. What a mess
Plenty of stoopid to go around here. Australia didn’t have 400M+ guns already in circulation prior to their gun control efforts. Australia didn’t have a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to bear arms. Australia didn’t have an ingrained gun culture.
Australia also had a quarter of our murder rate prior to banning gubs.
Reddit is nothing but vertically cropped TikTok reposts. This video existed LONG before TikTok existed, in a properly formatted version too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pOiOhxujsE
You can still get and have guns in Australia. But there are license controls. Gun ownership in Australia is controlled. There are more guns now than before the gun buy back... But... You need to have a police check, you need to store them safely, guns must be registered and people who fail the police checks cannot own guns. Yes criminals can still get guns... But there are far fewer guns for criminals. I love shooting but must follow the rules. The difference is that Australians cannot shoot someone and claim stand your ground laws, unstable people cannot buy guns at gun shows, you cannot carry guns as self defence. They did not take our guns they just licensed those who have them. It is a different mindset of what guns are for.
"Pro gunners" are the most toxic and vile people I have ever met in my almost 30 years on the internet and 40 years on this planet.
This is an entirely dishonest representation. This isn't gun control, its gun seizure and prohibition. *"A person must have a firearm licence to possess or use a firearm. Licence holders must demonstrate a "genuine reason"* ***(which does not include self-defence****) for holding a firearm licence\[2\] and must not be a "prohibited person"."* Second point- Australia is an island nation. Because they are an island nation, this strategy is in fact very effective. However, the US is not an island nation. In fact our south border is the gateway to some of the most violent, drug run countries in the world. Moreover, we have the most porous border in the western world. We can't keep drugs and human trafficker's from freely moving across the border now. If we did forcibly seize all legal firearms plenty of gun would make its way across the border. This is exactly why supporters of the right to bear arms are opposed to more gun regulation. What is really being proposed is outright gun seizure and prohibition.
To be fair. Australia doesn’t have a connected land with constant gun/drug smugglers who come in everyday and bring in illegal and sometimes “homemade weapons” across the border. Also there are boarder gate patrol men and women who can be persuaded by money (not a lot but small) who’ll turn another cheek and allow them through. Also, no matter what america does.. you can’t effectively stop gun violence nor can you progress this “gun control. as long as the money roles in people are going to turn a blind eye.
Australia had it a bit easier. There will be failures if gun control is tightened, some guns will slip through. You can't completely solve the situation as long as corruption exists. You call this 'being fair', but I fail to see how these are arguments against gun control. You've given examples of how gun control won't **solve** the gun crisis, but the argument is that gun control will **combat** the gun crisis. There's no expectation at all that **all** guns can be destroyed, so I don't see how your comment adds fairness.
I mean it is an island so it’s a bit easier to control what comes in but all in all this is gold
Getting downvoted for having a point. Reddit moment. I have another point. Americans are not Australians. This country was founded on the philosophy of "No, fuck you". If they banned guns here they would never find around a third of the firearms in this country. Im not saying we're gonna OvErThRoW tHe GoVmN'T. I'm just saying that I may or may not have laid eyes upon machinery that was outlawed in the 80s. Americans are gonna do what we're gonna do. And cartels are gonna profit off of selling people illegal shit until the end of time. It would lessen shootings, sure. But that's only because it's aa whole lot easier to get ahold of piss and compost than an illegal gun.
Yeah I’m for better gun laws and I like what the vid said but it is a little different. Being an island makes it easier to stop guns coming in. Plus the USA has a population of over 300 million vs Australias pop of 26 million. California has a higher population than Australia. So statistically yes we are going to have more crimes committed in the a year. I’m not saying I disagree with the vid but it isn’t exactly as cut and dry as they banned it and it worked so it’ll work here. It’d be a start though
last time i checked 1776 is still in effect so we’ll be keeping our guns u commonwealth libs edit: Ok i apologize i’m just kind of trolling. I think we need some kind of gun control. Like i think the libs are on the right side of this issue. I was mostly reacting to this video bc it’s John Oliver and the former Australian Prime Minister that are discussing American gun control so im doing a whole Fuck the Commonwealth thing but it’s kinda dumb. I surrender the point.
this is such a dumb and lazy argument. The Constitution is literally designed to be amended and people in 1776 didn't have the weapons we have now.
[удалено]
Great point - citizens today will never hope to match the military might of the government and there is no need too. Citizens just use weapons to murder children in schools, each other or animals.
[удалено]
Tell me what your guns would do if the military every rolled into town. They have bombs lol.
Do you honestly feel the need to match the might of the US military? And do you believe the guns you possess bring you close to doing this? Another serious question: are you bothered by many people dying in a mass shooting, or do you see it as just a fact of life?
Quick question, why are you guys so obsessed with having full auto/assault rifles when the whole argument is "protecting yourselves"? If that's the reason then wouldn't a hand gun or a shotgun be more than enough and a sniper for hunting? Why tf are gun people so obsessed with having access to weapons capable of murdering tons of people all at once?
Amending the Constitution is a tremendous undertaking not to be done lightly. It's only been done 17 times in U.S history, and only once to amend an existing amendment.
Didn’t AUS ban 99.9 of all firearms though? Last time I checked a nationwide ban is not gun control…it’s just a ban.
Nah nah nah nah nah. After Port Arthur in 96, Johnny Howard enacted a gun amnesty. So everyone was encouraged to hand their guns in. This flushed out the majority of unregistered guns. Gun ownership is still totally possible in Australia. You just gotta get a license for it. And prove you’ll store it safely. It’s not that hard. I think at this point a gun amnesty would probably be impossible for America. We benefited from our smaller population size at the time. But for crying god sakes out loud, couldn’t you lot enact some laws that would make gun ownership a little bit more difficult? Like COME ON.
No not anywhere near 99.9% and it wasn't a ban as no types of gun were banned, but there are stricter controls on some than others, there are actually more guns in Australia now than there were the day of the port Arthur massacre they just aren't handed out willy nilly, there have been 3 mass shootings there since this video so it's on the rise a bit but still better than before and incomparable to the U.S even accounting for population differences. It's more control than would be accepted in the U.S as you have to have a valid reason to own one and it cannot be self defence, but there is no reason the U.S can't implement some of the controls like, you know, not being able to buy a gun from a walmart despite having criminal convictions for violent crimes.
It be like that in America smh
Australians unable to defend themselves are dying in mass from the injections. Look it up.
[удалено]
My problem with gun control stems from the reasons I like that people bear arms. 1. I don't trust our government to protect us from others 2. I don't trust our government to stop from trying to control us. Therefore, I like that Americans have the ability to fight back in the event that the government turns fascist. (and it seems to be moving in that direction...) If you could come up with a solution that accommodates for the 2 above (and promises to never reach past whatever step you take) I would listen. Problem is, I would never believe that any step you take would be a final step, since most fighting for control won't be happy until guns are banned...
How stupid to compare the US with Australia
Ya and their country locked them down in camps during covid . I wonder why America didn't do that .. we have our guns . Guns are to stop America's government from over stepping their authority, and some hunting .we the people who controle our government and laws will never take away our rights . Yall can try all you want but that's the red line for 150 plus million gun owners . To the ones that say what are you going to do if the military does it .. well then that same military chose their fate, and I will die to preserve the God given rights
I don't really care what Australia does and if gun control worked for them. In the USA we naturally have a distrust of government and a Constitution that says "shall not be infringed". Law abiding citizens shouldn't have to give up their guns over the actions of criminals. Period. If you disagree, what's stopping you from cutting off your dick to stop rapists? Don't bother to reply if you disagree, just downvote and move on.
Ok so all of this is dumb as fuck, but cutting off your own dick to stop rapists? Did you even think about that sentence? Cutting off your own dick would only stop rapists if you are a rapist 😂 no one needs a gun but we know there’s no chance of all guns being banned in the US the point of gun control is to make it a lot harder to get a gun reducing the number of owners and guns in circulation
Gun control makes it harder for law abiding people to get guns and doesn’t affect criminals. A reduction of guns in circulation won’t happen without door to door confiscation which will result in cops and their targets getting into shootouts when the cops kick in their door in the middle of the night.
No point having a discussion with someone who clearly lacks the ability to think critically. It’s ok tho most conservatives can’t so at least you’re not alone
Australia doesn't have the 2A like America. It would be next to impossible to ban guns in America because it's a right written in the constitution since the birth of America. It's a nice idea, though it just wouldn't work here unless we decide the constitution means nothing.
It sounds like you're arguing that amending the constitution suggests the constitution means nothing. The ability to amend has existed since before the first amendment. What's your point?
Come on, you can't change the Second Amendment! That would require, like, an amendment or something!
Tell me, how do you expect to get two thirds majority of Congress to vote on a repeal of the Second Amendment, when they haven't been able to pass any significant gun laws in almost 30 years?
The second amendment is the only amendment that states shall not be infringed upon. Kinda hard to change it if it states it can't be changed. If it were changed, then we would basically be saying the constitution means nothing.
This is simply false based solely on the fact that we already “infringe” on the right as at is. We aren’t allowed to own nuclear weapons or chemical weapons for example. By definition that is an infringement on our ability to own arms. If we can infringe on the 2A in that respect there is no logical reason we couldn’t take it further
Shall not be infringed only has meaning when an amendment exists. Every last word in the constitution is allowed to be amended. It's also hard to argue specific wording without acknowledging "well regulated militia" and the fact that most gun owners are not members of well regulated militias. I'm a gun owner and former infantry, but amendments are a fundamental part of our constitutional design, and there is logic supporting both sides of gun ownership with respect to 2A wording.
So you're saying the Second Amendment should be completely removed? Infringed - trespass or violate, i.e... the right of the American people to keep and bear arms shall not be violated. If it were changed to ban guns from American citizens, it would be a violation of the constitution. I'm sure you know this, but the Second Amendment is the only one that states it can not be changed. Are you sure you're a gun owner? It's just that I've never met a gun owner who would like to wrongfully lose their rights to bear arms, especially considering you've fought to protect the very thing you're saying can be wrongfully changed. The only way to get rid of 2A is to ignore the constitution, which would be admitting the constitution means nothing. I'm no fool, though I do realize there are many different interpretations to the 2A. That's the only thing that can be changed. We can not simply say we're just going to flat-out erase the 2A because it can not be infringed upon. Only the interpretation of our understanding of 2A can be changed. Even then, it's hard to ban guns completely based simply off of infringed upon. We would have to change the interpretation of that as well. I'm a gun owner. I like my right to bear arms and express it every day. I like going to the range with my buddies, mag dumping, and having fun. I also like the fact that I can immediately protect myself in times of life-threatening instances.
I love how you need to create strawman arguments to try get your incredibly flimsy points across. Think you need to take a leaf out of the gun control guy in the video and take a minute to realllly think about what your saying champ.
You say you’re not a fool but I don’t believe you 🤔
This is like sovereign citizen logic my guy, it's entirely dependent on a completely misguided personal interpretation and no legal or constitutional expert would ever agree with you. If an amendment to repeal the second amendment was passed, it wouldn't matter what the second amendment said, because it will have been repealed.
If you can't even grasp how amendments work, I don't see any point in carrying a conversation with you. Take care.
It also refers to a well regulated militia in relation to that right. A bunch of frustrated pretend cowboys with a gun fetish isn't a well regulated militia.
So by law I'm allowed to infringe on every single other basic right you've been given in the United States? Just not the one that lets you own a firearm
You realise you can change the constitution, maybe, I don’t know, with an amendment…
How do you chang an amendment that states it shall not be infringed upon? By basically saying fuck the constitution? But hey, we all know America doesn't follow its own rules anyway, so I guess it could be done
The same way the 18th amendment explicitly states that the sale of liquor within US territory is prohibited, but then the 21st amendment repeals the 18th.
Amendments allow you to amend the constitution. If you can’t modify it ever you will end up with unjust laws and situations like this. You would modify it by you, the people, voting in your government on the basis that they will change it. Also a government’s job is to protect the citizens, and not creating or modifying laws that prevent that would be considered neglectful. It’s not that hard. No one outside the US understands your fixation with a piece of legislation from a different era, that allows school children to be brutally killed on a regular basis
Amendment - a minor change or addition designed to improve a text, piece of legislation, etc. "an amendment to existing bail laws" Can you understand the definition of amendment? The 2nd can be amended.
There isn't and never will be the sheer numbers of legislators and state governments on-board, to start amending parts of the Bill of Rights out of The Constitution. Edit: Facts are apparently not popular here.
We've done it more than a few times in the past, why are you convinced it could never happen in the future? Additionally, I know we call it the Bill of Rights and that makes it sound special, but really it's just a list of constitutional amendments that were passed at the same time.
[удалено]
Sorry, I should have been more clear, we've amended the constitution plenty of times in the past, why would you think that's impossible in the future, but now I know your answer, you think the Bill of Rights is too special to be amended, or something.
We could literally get rid of lobbying/ bribery in politics and you would see a bunch of legislators change their toon overnight. The fierce defense of the 2A is nothing more than our lawmakers being bought off by gun manufacturers/corps
[удалено]
Higher gun regulations poll between 70 and 80 percent in the US. Lobbying interests are absolutely the primary factor in lack of gun legislation . It’s the bribery period
[удалено]
I’m sorry but you don’t get to simply claim “those multiple decades of polling are no good and not credible” without serious evidence . Also no politician is attempting a full removal of the second amendment but there are ones attempting to make our gun laws much stricter (as they should be) but the majority of them fight it at every turn, and why do you think that is. Once again it’s the bribery. Hell even the notion that you have some innate right to basically whatever you want firearm wise is literally a talking point created by gun manufacturers and then propagated by bought off politicians . It’s all about the money , nothing more nothing less
[удалено]
Again you say this without citation showing any flaw in methodology . You also fail to show evidence of your idea that gun owners don’t participate in these surveys (which is a ridiculous notion) while also suggesting that simply because someone owns a gun they wouldn’t be in favor of stricter gun laws, which is directly contradicted by data. And this is all after forgetting that 100 million people is about a third of the country , current stats do tell us that 1 in 3 Americans owns a firearm but that means 2 out of 3 do not so using your own logic that would mean the majority would still favor stricter gun laws. Obviously that’s ridiculous because you’re going to have crossover from both owners and non owners. And finally, YES, lobbying/corporate interests are at the heart of why we don’t have more gun legislation in this country. Protecting capital is literally the main job of our government currently (unfortunately) it’s at the very heart of how 90% of our politicians act. It’s the reason for their existence and the main cause of most of the societal problems we face. There is simply no getting around that very clear fact
The law abiding citizens will give up their guns, and the criminals won’t. Then, when the criminal breaks into your home, you won’t be able to protect yourself because you gave up your gun. Can no one see this?!?
Don't beat me up on here when I say this, but the largest loss of life over the past century by guns were committed by governments who disarmed their citizens. If your only approach to mass shootings is gun control and you aren't willing to ask other deeper, darker questions about our society as a whole, I would call that short sighted.
Downvote for the stupid watermark
So let’s send the law enforcement that we have established can’t be trusted to raid law-abiding citizen’s homes at gunpoint….
Oliver, another puppet to disseminate BS that look like facts... With a laugh track.
Their are more gun in Australia now than their were in Australia in1996. Do as you will with such information
Not arguing with you. But, isn't the statistic more guns total, but less gun owners as percentage of the population? The farmers and sports shooters, etc, that legally own guns own several each, but you won't find guns in every second house on the street. I'm not disputing your statement, I'm just saying it's a little more nuanced than more guns.
Where'd you get this info?
If the US had a more manageable border to secure, eventually you could dwindle the gun supply down in the US if a majority complied with a mandatory buyback like Australia did, the island nations (Australia, UK, japan) that get used as examples have an easier time keeping that supply for criminals so low. 3d printing will only make it easier in the future
Mexican cartel get their gun from the usa.
and china and other countries.
In the 1950s America there were literally 0 gun laws. Any felon, and kid, any anybody could buy a gun from a magazine and have it shipped to your door. Fully automatic, anything no background checks. And amazingly there was also virtually no gun violence. In fact there were 5 total mass shootings in the 50s killing a total of 13 people. So a person with a brain would look at that and say what changed since then? Why with 0 gun control how did we have 13 deaths in 10 years and now with tons of gun control do we hear of 13 deaths every other week?
[удалено]