4 votes

The Daily Show On Gun Control - Video

Following the Senate's defeat of the Manchin-Toomey amendment, 'The Daily Show's John Oliver responds to the theory that government-mandated gun control doesn't work by taking a look at Australia.

No Surprise Here

Part 1

http://youtu.be/9pOiOhxujsE

Part 2

http://youtu.be/TYbY45rHj8w

Part3

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Whats Scary About These Videos

is The Daily Show praising politicians in Australia for going against the wishes of the people they represent and pushing for laws that steal from them and forces them to be victims. If the people wanted Gun Control those politicians would still have jobs.

This is scary coming from a show that many young people watch.

10 years from now...

...it will take the Chinese an hour to annihilate the 89% of the Aussie population living in the cities. The remaining 11% outside the cities will be hunted down by drones in a few days like in War of the Worlds. Our post collapse government will cut a deal to avoid war with the Chinese.

It amazes me that grown ups commonly think world wars are a thing of the past.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty" TJ

They always...

Choose hacks that can't back up their stances. Which makes you wonder if they actually have stances. I believe that since the bans,Rapes are up 60-80%. Not a good trade off.

I guess I'm not alone

Until the drugs part I didn't think he did bad at all.

Background checks and waiting periods are just liberal emotional gibberish. They are completely arbitrary, ineffective ideas.

Liberals seem to think that saying something in a snarky tone and pausing for laughter is the same thing as saying something intelligent. All I heard was a desperate, illogical plea for government authority.

You're right. I was harsh.

It's just that I tend to get frustrated when I am so in line with someone's argument when they defend what they do with their freedom, only to be disappointed to find out that they have reservations when it comes to tolerating what others do with their freedom. At least it seemed like he wanted to form an informed opinion instead of just spewing out irrational talking points. For that I take back using hack to describe him.

I guess I'm not alone

If 90% of People Support Background

checks then why would politicians be afraid to support it? The 10% of people against it are going to vote them out??? How does that work? This is Liberal BS at its worst.

It's because the NRA is a

It's because the NRA is a powerful interest/pressure group that exerts a powerful influence on our politics. It's all special interests, and doesn't reflect the will of the people. Very undemocratic.

The NRA

is more powerful than the will of 90% of the population? Not likely

yeah sure.

that's it.

americans are not subject to "the will of the people".
here's an example:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0347...

or are you suggesting this decision was wrong?

"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul

Australia is more violent,

Australia is more violent, and more criminal than the US. I should know, I'm from there. Things got much worse when the guns were banned. When people bring up the UK and Australia to back up their claims of gun control, I just laugh.

Yes Australia is more

Yes Australia is more violent/criminal, but that's got nothing to do with guns. Most people in Australia live in urban/semi-urban areas, and alcohol/drugs are a bigger problem than in the USA. It has gone up of late because Australia's population density has gone up. On the other hand, most people in America live in small towns, which aren't exactly hotbeds of crime.

Even if you conservatives don't want the government to take away your guns (which I sympathize with), you have to admit that having background checks is a sensible option. In real life, decisions are made by people coming together and devising solutions, rather than adhering to anachronistic dogma and indulging in blind absolutism (which has been the bane of the libertarian movement in this country).

Background checks are utterly useless.

Here's why.

First of all, we already have them if you buy from a dealer (which accounts for the *vast* majority of legal gun purchases). They stop nothing, of course.

Second, "universal" background checks are ridiculous; I would have to run a background check if I wanted to sell my hunting rifle to a friend.

Third, it's already a felony to sell a gun to someone who's not allowed to own a firearm. There is literally no reason for a criminal contact to bother with the checks, given that he's already committing a felony. Adding another felony does not give them any extra incentive to obey the law.

Finally, they're utterly unenforceable. Let's take the scenario of me selling my .30-30 to a friend. I sell it to him, I do not run background checks. Nobody knows, and the odds of actually getting in trouble would be slim to none.

Now go beg a police officer (WITH A GUN) to protect you, since you clearly don't believe in others protecting themselves. See how that works out.

I'm not a conservative, but...

Having background checks is not, in any sense, a reasonable option because:

1. It is a form of registration. (And registration is the necessary precursor to confiscation from those who need to be armed.)

2. It will not affect unjustified aggression. (Once a person has decided to execute unjustified and immoral aggression using a firearm, he is unlikely to submit to any kind of background check if that activity hinders his ability to execute the aggression.)

This last point is extremely important. If one is actually interested in "devising solutions," then the first observation is that far more people are killed by legal aggression executed under the guise of "authority" than all else. For a solution, we need to remove the guns, tanks, drones, missiles, nuclear arms, and above all the myth of authority, from those who are the primary perpetrators of aggression.

The only way this can happen is if those who morally defend liberty keep, maintain, bear, and know how to use superior arms.

This is not anachronistic dogma nor blind absolutism. It is simple reality. It is the simple recognition that a society built on a foundation of aggression has no future, and forcing background checks on *anyone* who has not initiated aggression himself is a form of immoral, unjustified, and counterproductive aggression.

To your first point: saying

To your first point: saying registration leads to confiscation sounds like a classic slippery slope argument -- leave that sort of thing to the paranoid conspiracy theorists, please.

Your second point: "Once a person has decided to execute unjustified and immoral aggression using a firearm, he is unlikely to submit to any kind of background check if that activity hinders his ability to execute the aggression." Yeah, and my point is that if he doesn't submit to a background check, it will be much more difficult for him to get access to a firearm, making it difficult for him to commit mass slaughter if he is so disposed.

Let's look at the facts -- the USA has the highest per capita rate of gun-related deaths in the developed world, and also happens to have the most guns per capita. There are a lot of variables that affect this, but you'd have to be really wrapped up in blind ideology not to recognize that there may be a correlation between the two statistics.

Your looking at the wrong numbers

Gun sales in the US grew from the 90's - present
homicide rates decreased during that same period

Here is an article comparing Canada's violent crime vs. US.
showing gun laws don't work.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2004/06/23/mauser/

No!

No, there's no paranoia or conspiracy theory!

There's a long history that shows registration most definitely leads to confiscation.

New Zealand, 1921 the ownership of revolvers were allowed in the name of personal defense, 1970s this list was used to confiscate all revolvers.

Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot...

Chicago, put in registration of long guns, used that same registration to confiscate semiauto long guns in the early 1990s.

1996 Australia used its list of registered semiauto hunting rifles to confiscate all those weapons. The real Crocodile Dundee was murdered by cops when he refused to give his up.

The National Guard knew just which houses to go to in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and people were Forcibly disarmed.

Last year Canada ended its national long gun registry, a national database of every rifle and shotgun in the country that was supposed to help police track the movement of and sale of weapons. When it was introduced twenty years ago critics said the registration of firearms would eventually lead to confiscation, a criticism dismissed as ridiculous, yet that’s what happened and more right up until its dismantling.

As recently as last winter law abiding gun owners who had complied with the registry were having their rifles confiscated. In late 2011 hundreds if not thousands of people who had legally purchased the Armi Jager AP80, a .22 calibre variant of the AK47, were informed that their rifles had been deemed illegal and must be surrendered.

You need to look at the facts. More guns means LESS overall crime.

When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign: that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. ~J. Swift

Funny

well it was funny at least. I get what they're trying to say...if no one had guns there wouldn't be gun violence...but I like my guns. Besides, does the Australian gov't still have guns? Check.

I still stand beside the fact that guns don't kill/injure people. People kill/injure people. The argument shouldn't be "get rid of the guns" it should be "get rid of whatever makes people WANT to kill/injure other people".

If ignorance is bliss, Washington DC must be heaven.

People kill people, but the

People kill people, but the gun helps. Much easier to kill with a gun than with a knife or anything else. As far as "getting rid of whatever makes people WANT to kill/injure other people", I admire the sentiment, but there are always going to be crazy and deranged people in the world. What we can do is make it as hard as possible for them to get the tools to commit murder.

Alcohol related deaths

OUTNUMBER gun related deaths.

You should probably just stop talking.

They that give up liberty for security deserve neither.

During the 90's

gun sales climbed and homicides were cut in half in the US.

So you're saying we need to

So you're saying we need to pick and choose who is crazy/deranged and who isn't? Getting a little slippery...

I get what you're implying. But there is no way to weed out the bad people and single them out without getting good people in the mix too.

If ignorance is bliss, Washington DC must be heaven.

"But there is no way to weed

"But there is no way to weed out the bad people and single them out without getting good people in the mix too."

Right, and that's part of my point. Yes, it's hard to weed out the bad people -- but it doesn't mean that we can't try to make it hard for them to get their semi-automatic weapons. And if it means making everyone (including good people) submit to background checks, I don't see a problem with that.

There are some who think that having a background check on guns places an unreasonable burden on exercising a fundamental constitutional right, and that it infringes on the 2nd amendment. I disagree wholeheartedly with that -- it really depends on what you mean by "infringement". If people with clean backgrounds can still own guns provided they subject themselves to the checks, it's well within the 2nd amendment provisions.

This brings us to a larger point: that for some reason, we (especially the libertarian movement) treat the constitution as sacrosanct, almost as some kind of religious text. The constitution was written by human beings. Great human beings, but nevertheless human, and thus not perfect. In fact, Thomas Jefferson himself said that we should revise it every 19 years -- perhaps because he understood that in the case of things like the 2nd amendment, weaponry would get more advanced (we would go from muskets to semi-automatic weapons), and it would get much easier to kill a lot of people in a short time.

Background checks....

.....how would that be enforced? Same way the law is that says folks under 21 can't have a handgun? Same way that felons aren't allowed to own firearms? How are those working out?

How would you force a criminal, selling a firearm in an alley to another criminal, run a background check?

If someone is going to commit murder, why would they NOT commit any lesser criminal act?

What They Fail To Mention

is during that same time period Gun Homicides in the US fell at the same rate (faster i think) and gun sales were climbing...

police state on the rise

I wonder if Australia has a burglar rate at every 14.6 seconds like the ADT commercial states we have in USA or tanks and FBI busting down doors like in boston. Just wondering.there are many things they forget to mention.