Comments

  1. Grant says

    The idea that there is something in American Culture that leads to gun violence, might be the cowboy mentality some have. Romanticized visions of the old west where a man with a gun solved all his problems quickly is appealing.

    Maybe that is a SMALL part of the issue. Certainly the issue is complex and has more that one factor contributing to it, but I do believe that might be one of them.

  2. Yaro says

    You guys had such good sound production in the past few episodes. What the heck happened this time?

  3. says

    This is Jesus, the caller at around the 55th minute. Just wanted to thank you for your comments, it really helped me a lot thinking about the future and my daughter’s future. Thanks again!

  4. corwyn says

    I commend to everyone’s attention the correlation between gun culture and former slave states.

    Also, the murder rates per 100,000 for various countries. And the murder rate in the U.S for the past couple of decades.

    As usual, people will believe what they find more if they find the links themselves.

  5. Nik Andrews says

    Hi all I am from the UK and love watching your show. Sadly though since you have become only internet based from a broadcasting POV there only seems to be Atheists calling in and it gets a bit boring. You need more Theists.

  6. ironchops says

    @ 7 Russell:
    It looks like you are: 1. Proud of a booger you just dug up! –or– 2. Saying Bon appetit. Maybe both.
    I like guns but I don’t like gun violence (or any other violence for that matter). We have a right to bear arms but most of us are not allowed to own fully automatic weapons, tanks, artillery or atomic bombs. There needs to be some kind of control.

  7. ironchops says

    I also noticed that Russell yelled out to god at the feed back at the beginning of the show. Funny. Then Martine said a prayer. Funnier still.

  8. says

    @ Russell, I am afraid you are incorrect when you said most murder is not committed by theist…the majority of crime is committed by religious persons. Most hate and violence in this world is religious in nature…but I think you know and agree with that.

    A majority of people identify as believing in a God. That ratio extends into the criminal world as well.

    @ Martin
    Who needs 13 shoes? Who needs 13 paintings, Who needs 13 cars? Who needs 13 pens? Who needs 13 spoons? Who needs 13 arrows? Who needs 13 knives? Who needs 13 books? Who needs 13 hammers? Who needs 13 guns? All of these are VALID questions to ask. Its ONLY when the answer isnt ethical or socially acceptable should we act. At what point do we start asking the question there is the problem. It s NOT about limiting the thing. I can own 100 guns if I want, the amount will never cause me to be a criminal. How many people have you killed? How many guns would it take for you to murder 1 person? I really hope the answer is ZERO, because if simply giving you a gun causes you to turn into a killer…??? Its the joke, I have raped and killed the exact number of women I want to…zero.

    Men solving problems with violence is a world problem…not just an American one.

    Some day the Christian Right might just rise up and you had better hope there are enough guns to stop them. That is the flaw in most liberal’s views… The Golden rule, “he who has the gold makes the rules & HE WHO HAS THE GUN TAKES THE GOLD.

  9. Joe E Dangerously says

    I don’t know why nobody else seems to want to say this but I feel like we all probably know it. Maybe it’s because we want to avoid getting tons of spam from the gun nuts. But in any case, the “it’s a mental health issue and not a guns issue” line is just something people say when they’ve swallowed a nice big load of the gun industry’s bullshit. The NRA and the rest of the gun lobby have inundated our culture with pro-gun propaganda and we equate guns with freedom. Not just because of that but it’s now a big part of it. So because they don’t want to blame anything on the sea of guns we’re drowning in they just point the finger at mental health. When you repeat that line you’re regurgitating propaganda and nothing more. And that has also caused a problem on the left with just not wanting to talk about mental health at all. I have several disabilities both physical and mental. I know about stigma and I know about ableism. Better than the vast, vast majority. And yes, we do have a lot of shit to deal with that we should not. But it’s problematic to say “It’s not mental health. That’s not important here.” Well all my life I’ve been hearing things like that. I couldn’t get my depression or anxiety properly treated as a kid because my parents bought into the whole “just talk about something else” thing. And now I have PTSD from things that happened to me as a kid that maybe some treatment at the time could have helped. But no, we just talked about something else. Damn it, I’m sick of talking about something else! No! We have a problem with mental health care and we need to help people who need help. Not avoid the problem. If we’d helped maybe we could have avoided some of this. But we didn’t. We. Did. Not. Help. There are people who need help. I have depression, OCD, generalized anxiety disorder, and PTSD. Why is it that I can’t get proper care without paying a ton of money I don’t have? Why did one of my best friends have to live with her schizophrenia from age eight until recently because her parents just didn’t want to talk about it? This whole “talk about something else” mentality does not help me or her. It helps you to be comfortable in your bubble. That’s it.

    But the bottom line here is just because the gun people want to blame everything on mental health does not mean we need to overreact the other way. It IS about mental health. It IS about guns. It IS about our culture. It IS about misogyny, racism, xenophobia, etc. It is about all of these things and when we tow the line for the right wing gun industry or overreact by going the complete opposite direction we just spin our wheels and don’t go anywhere except in circles. That needs to stop.

  10. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    But the bottom line here is just because the gun people want to blame everything on mental health does not mean we need to overreact the other way. It IS about mental health. It IS about guns. It IS about our culture. It IS about misogyny, racism, xenophobia, etc. It is about all of these things and when we tow the line for the right wing gun industry or overreact by going the complete opposite direction we just spin our wheels and don’t go anywhere except in circles. That needs to stop.

    Acceptable, and fairly well said.

  11. says

    @ Joe E Dangerously
    The problem with what you are saying is the same as what Russell was saying…
    There are MILLIONS of mentally ill people, yet only a handful commit these horrible acts.
    There are MILLIONS of gun owners, yet only a handful commit these horrible acts.

    When are we going to punish the Police for all these murders and beatings they commit?
    Answer= We are NEVER going to punish the Police, only the OFFENDERS who are Police.

    When are we going to start blaming the Car manufactures and Alcohol manufactures for drunk driving deaths?
    Answer = We will NEVER punish the manufactures, we punish the person based on their actions.

    Both cars and alcohol are easy to get…why are we not passing more laws against them…making it harder to drive drunk?
    Why doesnt every car come with a breath analyzer on the ignition? Why don’t our cars come with governors limiting the speed? Why don’t cars come with sensors to detect illegal substances in the cab then call 911 to report the owner? All of this is 100% possible and has been invented. All of these have been installed in cars by court order..they all work. Why are we not using them in everyone’s cars?

    It is sad this happens, truly sad, but removing a persons right to self defense isnt the answer. It would cause MORE deaths.

    The last figure I saw for the FBI stated over 25 million people legally, properly and effectively defended their life or the life of another with a gun in any given year. Remove guns from everyone and you decrease gun crime (that would hinge on easy access to guns) by 75% and increase gun crime by 300% in cases were gun laws had no effect.

    That is why Gun Free Zones dont work….

    Maybe if we ban murder and rape those crimes will go away?

  12. mond says

    @sailure1
    There are a tonne of laws and regulations affecting alchol/car producers and people who buy and use them.

    Many of the current gun regulations would be equivalent of being able to drive a car without needing to have passed a test or have insurance.

    Also you said
    “Maybe if we ban murder and rape those crimes will go away?”
    The chance of the average person being murdered or raped is so low because they are illegal.
    Your above quote is basically saying that if you can’t stop something 100% then don’t try.

    I am not sure what you mean by “legally, properly and effectively defended their life “.
    Are you just using hyperbole to say 25 million people carry guns or
    are you saying there were 25 million people who actually drew there guns in self defence. If you are saying the latter then I call bullshit. If you are saying the former then you are just using hyperbole as a rhetorical tool…so meh who cares?

  13. corwyn says

    @15:

    Apparently, 1 in 3 gun owners defends their life every year. And roughly, this happens at a rate *five times* the rate of violent crimes in the same year. So all those law abiding, gun carrying citizens are failing to report 5 crimes for every one that is reported.

  14. Saurabh Sharma says

    Watch Dr. Kent Hovind aka “Dr. Dino” videos YouTube on creation vs evolution very educational. He debates professors from university who defended the macro evolution position. He is willing to debate anyone defending evolutionist if they can find a hall that seats atleast 1000 people and that that time for the debate should be divided 50 to 50 to be fair. On October 9th, 2015 @ 6:00 PM – 9:00 PM in Dallas Texas, he is gonna be giving a lecture on Creation, The Flood, and End Times. (More Details: 2peter3.com) if your interested to watch.

    [Rest of comment redacted because we don’t do links to Hovind’s YouTube rubbish here, and because, good grief, if you think we haven’t actually heard of this unrepentant fraud and aren’t fully versed in his scientifically illiterate blather, you must seriously be new to all this. And if you think Hovind has anything “very educational” to say on the subject of evolutionary biology, which he comprehends less well than the average chipmunk, well, all I can say is you shoulda gone to college. Here is something we will link to, though: Hovind’s hilarious “doctoral dissertation” from the double-wide degree mill he bought his fake Ph.D from. The harsh truth is that the only thing on Hovind’s résumé he’s actually earned is “convicted felon.” —Martin]

  15. Robert,+not+Bob says

    It’s the culture that needs to change. When guns are dangerous tools of last resort, to be carefully handled and stored like the deadly weapons they are, instead of casually handled symbols of power by untrained bullies filled with mastubatory fantasies of being Matt Dillon or Lucas McCain, there will be far fewer murders and accidents, even if there are still many guns around. Real, substantive, national level gun reform would be both a tool to help that transition happen, and a signal that it is happening.

    @14 A lot of gun deaths are accidents, caused by irresponsible handling and storage. Proper gun control would reduce that.
    @16: corwyn, I’m going to call “citation needed” here. I’m not going to insist that’s wrong, but it sounds an awful lot like something the NRA would say.

  16. mond says

    @17 I thought corwyn was be sarcastic..
    ‘law abiding….citizens failing to report…crimes”

  17. mond says

    oops. comment 17 must have been in moderation for a while and knocked the subsequent comments out sequence.

    edit

    @18 I thought corwyn was being sarcastic..
    ‘law abiding….citizens failing to report…crimes”

  18. Conversion Tube says

    @10 “”Men solving problems with violence is a world problem…not just an American one.””

    But many First World Countries citizens resort to violence with their fists. The US is a special case where they use guns more often.

  19. Robert,+not+Bob says

    @Mond, #20
    Yeah, looks like you’re right.

    @Saurabh Sharma #17
    Why don’t they just project a compilation video of his stock phrases from 15-20 years ago on a big screen? He’ll just quote himself verbatim, with the same sneering tone and inflections. Don’t need him in person…

  20. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    When are we going to punish the Police for all these murders and beatings they commit?
    Answer= We are NEVER going to punish the Police, only the OFFENDERS who are Police.

    Well actually… I have some rather unorthodox and extreme proposals that I would love if they were made law, such as undoing a couple centuries of slow decline of warrant requirements. I especially want a universal ban on “no knock, no announce” warrants. Also want a complete removal of all special immunity from police during their everyday policing work, a return of private criminal prosecutions (with all of the proper procedures and rules in place to prevent the victim from buying off the prosecutor), which would force police to carry personal liability insurance and bad cops would be forced out of the job from excessively high insurance premiums, and so forth. My anti-police positions are probably viewed as radical by most people. I hold these positions because there are systemic problems in the police that cause these “few bad apples” to behave badly. (Rather, I would hold that it’s not just a few bad apples, and police corruption and misbehavior is rampant.)

    See:
    > ARE COPS CONSTITUTIONAL?
    > Roger Roots
    http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

    Similarly, for gun crimes, there are systemic problems that cause the “few bad apples”, and we can target the systemic problems. For example, I am now strongly in favor of a reasonable, constitutional, and historically grounded approach to the gun problem:

    Every US citizen should be required once in their life to attend basic military training, plus gun safety courses in civilian life, plus courses on civilian law concerning justified self defense et al, plus basic ethics courses. Allow citizens to opt-out, but then they do not get a gun owner’s license, and it’s illegal to possess a gun with a gun owners license. Change it from “opt-out” to “opt-in” to cater to the majority. Optionally require a refresher course every 5 years, just like with drivers licenses. Of course, the course must be free to all to avoid issues like poll taxes. And of course, the class may not place undue burdens that have the intent or the effect of preventing access to gun ownership licenses for a majority of the population. The ability to obtain a gun owners license is a natural right that cannot be abridged except where there is a compelling government purpose, such as a previous felony conviction, or a documented history of certain mental illnesses, etc.

    This approach is constitutional, and undeniably so, based on the constitution itself where it grants the congress the power to train the militia, and in the Militia Acts of 1792 which required more or less every able bodied male adult to purchase a gun, ammunition, and to be ready to show up for yearly militia training.

    I happen to have strong suspicions that this would do wonders for helping reduce the size of the problem.

    When are we going to start blaming the Car manufactures and Alcohol manufactures for drunk driving deaths?
    Answer = We will NEVER punish the manufactures, we punish the person based on their actions.

    It seems you are a libertarian. I am not. I am in favor of policies that will make the world into a better place. If there was a regulation that would make the world into a better place, but the regulation placed a small “undeserved” burden on an innnocent third party, then I would generally be in favor of that regulation.

    Both cars and alcohol are easy to get…why are we not passing more laws against them…making it harder to drive drunk?

    At least for cars, you have to obtain an operators license, e.g. a drivers license. I’m proposing the same thing for guns.

  21. Monocle Smile says

    @EL
    Yes, I feel your proposals are radical. But maybe not overly so. Something to consider: who exactly becomes a cop today in an area that has a strong need for police? Answer: people who have no other choice. Due to pay freezes, evisceration of pensions, and layoffs, being a cop is an extremely undesirable job. As a result, you get entire precincts filled with people who couldn’t make it in something else. Are they really the people we want protecting us and enforcing the laws? Make being an officer a destination job or at least an excellent step up, and you’ll attract people less likely to be shitbags. I have this same criticism of the military, though at least those folks go through intense, regimented training that appears to straighten out most of them.

    As to your gun control proposal…I actually agree in full. Of course, it probably won’t stop someone from incoherently screaming about people coming to take their gunz. And it will only work if strongly and equitably enforced.

  22. Callinectes says

    The main thing I took away from this episode is that Mr Wagner plays Destiny. What class do you main, Martin? And what system are you on?

  23. corwyn says

    @18:

    I think you misunderstood my comment. It should be read in response to (and assuming the truth of) the comment in 15, which talks about 25,000,000 acts of gun self-defense per year. The comparison stats I got from justfacts.com

  24. says

    @ mond
    and there are a ton of gun laws also

    while many gun laws do stop crime, most do not. Its simply bull crap laws made to make the public happy.

    Felons account for 75% of gun crime.
    Since 1934 its been illegal for felons to own guns.

    Its illegal to have a loaded firearm within 1000 feet of a school and the firearm MUST be in a locked container. The glove box of a car doesn’t count, but a trunk does.
    How many criminals do you think stop, unload their illegal gun and lock it in the truck when they are 1000 feet from a school? WHO DO YOU THINK DOES FOLLOW THIS LAW?

    20 cities account for 80% of all gun crime
    many of the 20 cities are in the States with the TOUGHEST gun laws.
    This proves there is NO correlation between adding gun laws and a reduction in crime.

    There are cities where no one locks their door at night, everyone carries a gun, kids bring guns to school for school sponsored rifle practice..(against federal law)…and there is little to no gun crime. 100s of guns per person yet no gun crime???? How can this be if Guns and easy access to Guns are the source of the problem?

  25. says

    while many gun laws do stop crime, most do not. Its simply bull crap laws made to make the public happy….there is NO correlation between adding gun laws and a reduction in crime.

    Meanwhile in Australia…

  26. Monocle Smile says

    @failure1

    There are cities where no one locks their door at night, everyone carries a gun, kids bring guns to school for school sponsored rifle practice..(against federal law)…and there is little to no gun crime. 100s of guns per person yet no gun crime???? How can this be if Guns and easy access to Guns are the source of the problem?

    One of two ways
    1) You’re full of shit and these cities do not exist
    2) Everyone in these obviously ass-backwards hickville towns is part of the same cult.

    Felons account for 75% of gun crime.
    Since 1934 its been illegal for felons to own guns

    And yet they continue to acquire them “legally.” Furthermore, I reject your stupidly simple placing of people wholesale into two neat bins of “criminals” and “non-criminals.” All criminals were non-criminals at some point.

  27. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    I agree in part with sailure1. Assault weapon bans, magazine limits, etc., don’t do anything. Anything short of a full gun ban on all semi-automatic rifles and handguns (plus revolvers) is simply not taking the problem seriously – or it’s aimed not at fixing the problem directly, but aimed at changing the culture in preparation of a full gun ban. Of course, I think a full gun ban would drastically change gun death rates, or a full ban on semi-automatic weapons (and revolvers).

    @MS
    I completely agree in principle that being a cop should be an attractive job so that we get smart, good, moral dedicated people there who care about helping others. (I feel similarly about public school teachers. In many places, too many of the benefits are backloaded in the retirement package, which makes it not attractive to many people.) Of course, at the same time, we have police departments today that turn down applications for having an IQ that is too high. “Excessive risk of turnover” they say. Courts have upheld that as a lawful basis for discrimination for cop hiring too.

    I would be curious of more feedback. I mentioned the universal ban on “no knock, no announce” warrants before. That one I think isn’t all that radical IMHO, and I’m pretty convinced that it should be done now.

    Also, IIRC there was a few actual cities in the US that are trying to force their police to get personal liability insurance in the hopes that bad cops will be pushed out of the job from high insurance premiums. You can always rely on the insurance company actuaries to identify the “bad apples” and increase their insurance costs.

    As for the return of private prosecutions? Sure, that’s pretty radical. I currently think that this is the best solution that can solve the systemic problem of the corruption between cop and state prosecutor, and I think with some proper regulations and oversight in place by the grand jury that it actually will work out pretty well.

  28. says

    @ Monocle smile, I am going to ask you one more fucking time to stop with the insults at me. I have no idea why you are allowed to continually insult people, but it serves no purpose in a place people go to discuss ideas. You keep up at me and I will just keep insulting you…and I guess I will be the one who gets banned because it appears that’s how you keep this place filled with just one side of an issue….but I will once again ask you to fucking knock it off asshole.

    You can go to wiki, the FBI website or even the Census Bureau website and see which 20 cities in America are the ones who account for 80% of gun crime. Its not a novel or crazy idea…its a mainstream fact. I bet without even going there you can name many of them… I know I can.

    The other side of that issue is EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID… the safe places are the backwards ass redneck baby jesus lovin, sister fucking towns where everyone has a gun and the evil Jew/Atheist/Hindu/Buddhist/Zoroastrian are NOT allowed by LAW… BY LAW.

    What the fuck are you, me or anyone else going to do when the only people with guns are those people…and they have no problem using them on non-babe Jesus lovin people? I dont know about you, but I dont want to have sex with my sister…so I own a Gun and I train on how to use it.

  29. says

    @ Martin Wagner…
    So you believe Australia got where it is now by using American laws… Sir I have traveled the world extensively, both in the Military and as a civilian. Australia’s gun laws are no where near Americas laws. Oh and BTW the next time you guys go to Australia, leave the tourist and posh areas…go walk around the slums. Talk to the Aboriginals about freedom and oppression. Australia is very touch on Guns…they are also very good about keeping their dirty laundry in the closet.

    Do you actually think criminals follow gun laws? Are you in agreement with Monocle Smile that a Felon, who by law can’t own a firearm LEGALLY gets a firearm?

    So can you please explain how I can LEGALLY rob a bank? I mean if a law says plain and simple…”a felon cannot own a gun”…and you two say they (Felons) LEGALLY get guns…please explain this to me.

  30. Monocle Smile says

    @failure1
    If you want me to stop insulting you, then stop saying stupid things and stop misreading my responses.
    Your feelings of paranoia are not normal. Nobody has mentioned the banning of guns and that hasn’t been the position of gun-control advocates for a very long time. Stop tilting at windmills.

  31. Monocle Smile says

    You know how a felon “legally” gets a gun? The person who sells it to them either doesn’t know or doesn’t care. That’s what happens when we don’t require or enforce thorough background checks, don’t require licensing and monitoring, and refuse to hold gun salesmen accountable.

  32. says

    So you believe Australia got where it is now by using American laws

    Well, derp, no, they made up their very own law, because if they were using American laws, their situation would likely be as bad as ours is.

    Sir I have traveled the world extensively, both in the Military and as a civilian.

    Unimpressed. So have I. Lived in more countries before the age of 10 than most people visit in their lives.

    go walk around the slums. Talk to the Aboriginals about freedom and oppression. Australia is very touch on Guns…they are also very good about keeping their dirty laundry in the closet.

    You caused a minor earth tremor shifting those goalposts there, chief. I did not use Australia as an example of some utopia where nothing bad ever happens or has happened. I used it expressly in response to this patently false claim you made: “there is NO correlation between adding gun laws and a reduction in crime.” When in fact, after the 1996 Port Arthur Massacre, Australia enacted gun control measures including a massive buyback of semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, restricting private sales, and requiring prospective buyers to provide a “genuine reason” beyond “self-defense” for wishing to buy such a weapon. The result over the next 10 years was a 59% drop in firearm homicides and a 65% drop in suicides. There have also been zero mass shootings in Australia since passage of that law, when in the decade preceding Port Arthur, there had been 11.

    So in point of fact, there is a pretty irrefutable example of gun control legislation correlating to a reduction in gun crime. To try to refute it with examples of other injustices that exist there is a non sequitur.

    Do you actually think criminals follow gun laws?

    This is probably the second silliest anti-gun-control argument you could make (the first would be “More people get killed by cars!”). Naturally criminals don’t follow laws. You could as easily say rapists ignore rape laws, burglars ignore burglary laws, and speeders ignore traffic laws. But these facts are not a reason to not bother having those laws at all. Certainly criminals do what they do, even in situations where the consequences are dire. In Singapore, one nation where I used to live, they’ll flat out sentence you to death for drug trafficking, but it still happens. And yet, we remain a society of laws.

    Laws exist to reduce instances of crime, even they cannot eliminate them altogether. If it is harder for a would-be mass killer to get his hands on a massive arsenal, that reduces his opportunity and ability to commit his crime. The irony here is that what enabled the UCC killer to obtain 13 fucking guns in the first place was right-wing anti-gun-control paranoia. The shooter’s mother was hoarding weapons expressly because conservative media had terrified her into believing Obama was about to enact nationwide gun confiscation. The shooter was straight-up enabled by the very NRA-led agitprop that no laws can possibly stop gun crime and in fact more guns are the answer to gun crime.

    So you’ll have to excuse me if I can’t take seriously any arguments about the effectiveness of gun laws by a movement actively working to undermine public safety and provide proactive aid and succor to mass murderers.

    you two say they (Felons) LEGALLY get guns…please explain this to me.

    The gun show loophole. That’s a biggie. But as has been pointed out, until they commit their rampages, mass shooters have generally not been convicted felons.

  33. says

    @ Martin Wagner…

    So we are talking about American gun laws and how American gun laws are not effective…and we have these horrible tragic events and enact stupid fucking laws that dont do anything….then you toss out some stupid shit about another Country, who we both agree uses a completely different type of Government and has a completely different social structure and a completely different ideological mindset…and you say I was moving a goal post.

    You are the King of the moving the goal post my friend… can I do it too?
    1940’s Germany… or are you going to tell me the Holocaust didn’t happen after Hitler disarmed people?
    Mexico- Guns are 100% ILLEGAL…they dont have any fucking problems there…

    It is fool’s folly to compare the US with other Countries when you talk about Gun laws.

    There is no Gun show loophole. Its legal in several States to sell used firearms..just like any other personal property. There are special restrictions to keep the sale a LEGAL one… the person buying it MUST be allowed to own firearms and the person selling it MUST verify the persons identity as one who has a legal right to BUY a firearm in that State. I am a California resident. I can NOT go to a gun show in ANY fucking State and buy a gun WITHOUT going through a background check even though I own guns and have no legal restrictions from buying guns… If I do, the seller is committing a fucking FELONY and so am I. ITS A FUCKING CRIME.

    Now if a guy who lives in Texas goes to a gun show IN TEXAS, and is a felon. He doesn’t tell the seller he is a felon and buys a gun, HE STILL COMMITTED A CRIME. That isn’t a loop-hole. Its called freedom to sell your property and NOT be held responsible for getting scammed by a CRIMINAL. Can a drunk drive my car? If they kill a dozen people and they have no license, can I be held accountable? Can a drug addict buy prescription drugs? Is the Pharmacy liable for their actions if they followed the law but the buyer is NOT following the law? Can pregnant women buy smokes? Does a retail store get charged with a crime for selling cigarettes to a pregnant women? What about if a underage child shows proper (fake) ID…is the seller held accountable? If the seller of a firearm is KNOWINGLY either, selling to a felon OR not checking the ID of the buyer… the sale is illegal..HE IS COMMITTING A CRIME… its NOT a loop hole. ITS A FUCKING CRIME.

  34. says

    @ Monocle the goat fucker smile
    So you support the criminal prosecution of people who unknowingly get SCAMMED by a criminal?

    If a person KNOWS they are selling a firearm to a criminal, they are committing a crime…period. That doesnt make the sale legal and you are a fucking idiot to say that is how a felon LEGALLY gets a gun… so can I rob a fucking ATM and say I LEGALLY found the money…you dumb fuck.

    So how about we punish stores that sell cigarettes and alcohol to kids with fake IDs. I say put the fucking asshole clerk who has no fucking training in spotting a fake ID in jail.

    So how about we put a Pharmacist and the Doctor in jail for scripting & selling a drug addit drugs when the Addict conned both of them.

    So how about we toss retail store clerks in jail for selling cigarettes to pregnant women who then smoke?

    So how about we put car salesmen in jail for selling a car to a person who drives drunk?

    Fuck the car salesmen…lets screw that fucking 21 year old punkass bitch who sold the beer to that 45 year old who then got drunk and drove. How fucking dare he sell a person something who then committed a crime.

    We all know ESP is real right..everyone can read everyone’s mind so we all know whose going to commit crimes… dont we?

    dumbasses…

  35. Monocle Smile says

    @failure1
    Given certain details, yes, I support pretty much all of those things.
    Granted, unlike you, I’m not a libertarian with at least one severe personality disorder, so we’re not going to agree on much.

  36. says

    @ Monocle the goat fucker smile
    So there we all have it… you support putting innocent people in jail for getting scammed…. pure atheism right there…fuck them all let nature sort it out… Don’t worry about a rational intelligent conversation were people actually try to find a solution to this problem.

    The funny part is you idiot liberals are going to be the engineers of your own destruction. You all should start a national campaign to built giant gas chambers… that will keep everyone working until President Pat Roberts and Vice-President Ken Ham figure out what to do with them…

  37. says

    [waaarrrbargl!] and you say I was moving a goal post

    Yes, and now you’re doing it again. Your original assertion was there were no examples (you used the word “NO” in all caps, to emphasize its importance) of gun-control laws correlating to reduction in gun crimes. I refuted that, and now you’ve attempted, clumsily, to counter by saying that you were only talking about “American gun laws” and that Australia is some alien world with “a completely different type of Government and has a completely different social structure and a completely different ideological mindset” (which, by the way, we have not both agreed on; Australian culture is not really all that different from our own, and its government is a representative parliamentary democracy), effectively shifting your position from “no gun laws ever work” to “guns laws can work just fine, just not in America.” So, yeah.

    are you going to tell me the Holocaust didn’t happen after Hitler disarmed people?

    And to think people say gun proponents are paranoid!

    Now if a guy who lives in Texas goes to a gun show IN TEXAS, and is a felon. He doesn’t tell the seller he is a felon and buys a gun, HE STILL COMMITTED A CRIME. That isn’t a loop-hole. Its called freedom to sell your property and NOT be held responsible for getting scammed by a CRIMINAL.

    Right, you can’t go to another state, but if buying within your own state, a loophole indeed exists for secondary-market gun sellers not having to run background checks. If dealers at gun shows were required to check in-state buyers, then they’d keep themselves from getting scammed by a felon attempting an illegal purchase and avoid any liability. Seems like it would be in their best interests to support having to run such checks. They’d be protecting themselves legally, which I’d think any sensible person would be willing to do.

  38. says

    @ Martin Wagner
    Thor H Christ man, get a fucking grip on reality… I said there is NO fucking correlation to fucking gun laws and a reduction in crime…and we were fucking talking about fucking AMERICA after a fucking tragic shooting are we not?????? This is fucking why you liberals can’t be trusted to have a serious discussion on a serious topic without getting fucking stupid

    Mexico… fuck your Australia…MEXICO, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Israel… Fucking Starbase iV, Alderon…the whole fucking planet was destroyed and they had no fucking guns at all they had magic crime…

    are you prepared to fucking sit down…stop being a jerk and start having and adult conversation about our fucking problem OR do you just want to do the same old fucking shit until another asshole shoots a school up?

    We need to make sure 8 year olds don’t have access to machine guns in elementary school…lets write the law… Gee that will fucking help.

    So a Doctor breaks the law when a drug addict cons them into writing a script for a Schedule 3 drug? The Drug dealer loop hole?

    So a store clerk breaks the law when a minor gets an adult to buy them alcohol. The beer store Loop hole?

    Buying or selling a gun when the buyer is prohibited from owning a firearm is illegal….ALL THE TIME. There is NO FUCKING LOOP HOLE around this… Yes there are places a criminal can ILLEGALLY buy firearms in places LEGAL sales occur. in the same way a drug addict can get drugs and minors can get alcohol…. none of them are legal…which if you use common sense makes the sale ILLEGAL.

    Dealers at gun shows ARE required to check IDs, do background checks and comply with State and Federal age restrictions. This is where your information gets cloudy. All FFL (Federal Firearm License Holders) are REQUIRED to do a background check on ALL firearm transactions..period, end of the story..there is NO loop hole on this law. All buyers MUST fill out a BATFE Form 4473.

    Its ONLY when a private person, who has NO firearm license and does NOT draw an income from the sale of firearms can sell a firearm without a background check or filling a form 4473. They still must comply with State and Local laws. All States seriously advise an ID check. While many people believe they dont have to check IDs of buyers, in fact if they sell to a person who is prohibited and a DA can prove an ID check would have stopped the sale, the seller IS HELD LIABLE. As in if I fly to Arizona, attempt to buy a gun out of the local newspaper and the seller DOESNT ask me for ID, he can be charged with a crime. All States have this built into their laws. No State has a “Dont ask Dont tell” policy on firearm sales. Its “cover your ass, ask for ID” in all States. Do people ignore that…fuck yes they do ignore that and some even sell KNOWING the person probably ISNT legal. They are the exception NOT the rule.

    At EVERY gun show there are several anti-gun groups trying to illegally buy guns just to show the world how easy it is. Its a rare occasion that they do get an illegal sale. 1 outta 100 shows. When they do its NATIONAL news. They also face criminal prosecution for it.

    Prove me wrong. Open the news paper, call an ad for a private gun sale and tell them you want to buy it but dont have any ID or dont want to show ID…see what happens.

  39. says

    if having an “adult conversation” means agreeing with whatever sailure says, then no, we’re never going to have that conversation …

  40. says

    @sailure

    MATE, EAT A BLOODY SNICKERS.

    (written in CAPS LOCK FURY for EMPHASIS)

    General:

    I’m Australian. A schoolmate of mine narrowly escaped the Port Arthur killer only to take his own life a few years later (it was presumed due to depression and PTSD catalysed by the shootings), so I consider him added to the death toll. I, for one, am quite please with our record on mass shootings and, while I have no idea what would work in the US, given the batshit insanity of hardcore gun culture and the insane power and influence of the NRA/gun-factory lobby, it is perfectly obvious that the time to actually do something has long passed.

    Now, I also grew up in the country and many of my school friends were farm kids. Guns were normal: they were for vermin control, destroying sick or injured animals as well as hunting or sport. Self-defence was never a factor except in schoolboy fantasies of protecting the family home against Mad Max-style marauders with dad’s 12-gauge (or, better, grandpa’s Lee Enfield). But the atmosphere was such that questions of self-defence would’ve got you roundly mocked: “Defence against who? Reckon the Japs are comin’ back, do ya?”

    While I do think stricter laws on who can own what kind of firearm and under what circumstances would make a real difference in US gun murder (and suicide) rates, our starkly different history with guns makes it difficult to do a direct comparison. We didn’t have a Revolution here, nor a Civil War. The closest we came to any sort of armed rebellion was in the 1850s with the Eureka Stockade, a miners’ protest against colonial power that ended up with 20-odd killed (mostly rebels). In 1901 our disparate colonies federated into a single nation via a Constitutional Convention. Our own “Wild West” period, where white settlers and explorers did their best to open up the land and expel/exterminate any Aborigines rude enough to ask what the fuck they were up to, wasn’t romanticised and turn into a genre all its own. And our major military remembrance, ANZAC Day on April 25, commemorates not a victory, but a crushing defeat at the hands of the Turks in 1915 (as well as all military deaths since that time). And we got roped into Viet Nam, so, yep, thanks for that! And while our culture, like English-speaking white culture in general, likes violent entertainment and stories, when it comes to actual guns we’re a little more circumspect about glorifying them and we look a little sideways about people who seem to like them a little too much.

    As for the US, I frankly don’t give a dead dingo’s duodenum if someone’s freedom is slightly impinged because they can’t have an M-60 for home defence. Even more frankly, the Open Carry nutfucks who take their AR15s into restaurants with their mail-order flak jackets and webbing strapped over their shitty old gym t-shirts and military-surplus fatigues over would seem like giant, angry toddlers launching epic tantrums over the very possibility of being told “No” to me if, well, they weren’t carrying AR-15s. Your freedom can eat a bag of boiled arseholes if your preferred method of exercising it is passive-aggressive terrorism.

  41. says

    I’d suggest someone whose arguments leap straight to Hitler without passing “Go” and contain an average of 3-4 F-bombs per sentence (depending on how ragey his reaction is over having been soundly refuted) wouldn’t recognize an “adult conversation” if someone handed him an instruction manual.

  42. JD and Co. says

    @48 Martin
    How about 3 “d” bombs in a single sentence (“dead dingo’s duodenum” Comment #47)? That Hank guy is seriously funny. And so right on. Thanks for the comparative history of Australia versus America, and the overview on how we look from other places.

  43. says

    Heh! Thanks Martin. And no worries JD and Co.; sometimes I think the fact that mostly-white, mostly-Anglophone countries are starkly different in specific areas can get lost among the online to-and-fro. It seems that much of what the world knows about Australia can be summed up by Mad Max, Steve Irwin (Gawd rest his soul), certain famous Sydney landmarks and our enviable range of adorable/murderous wildlife – and that’s often the case in ‘Straya itself, with much of us knowing bugger-all about our own history (especially the parts regarding our despicable treatment of Aborigines [which continues in many ways]).

    Now, if you’ll excuse me, it’s the weekend of the Bathurst 1000. That’s when Australia’s petrolheads get ready to spend an entire Sunday smashing coldies and watching a 1,000km/620 mile endurance race around Mt Panorama (aka the greatest racetrack in the entire universe) featuring 4-door family sedans with 5L V8s running at least 600hp, with two drivers per car. It’s like if the Daytona 500 was run for six hours on a treacherous, twisty mountain course with a downhill main straight over a mile long (Conrod Straight – so named because so many engines have thrown conrods thundering down it). If you can get it online or on cable, bloody well go for it. Apart from ANZAC Day, the Melbourne Cup (a horse race held on a Tuesday) and every fishing trip ever, it’s about the best excuse to start drinking right after breakfast that our culture provides.

    Tune in next time when the topic will be “Australian actors who have played James Bond.”

  44. phil says

    Hank said most of it. I want to point out though that the upper house in our (Australia’s) federal gummint is called the Senate because it was modelled specifically on the upper house of another country. Can you guess which one?

    I read just recently that it wasn’t Adolf Hitler that insisted on gun control laws, it was part of the Versailles treaty that ended WW1, and it was the Nazis who relaxed those laws in the lead up to WW2.

    No problems in Mexico? WTF? From over here (Sydney) the place sounds like a war zone run by drug lords, with people being gunned down daily.

    Believing that no mechanism for reducing gun violence works because none will eliminate it is fallacious thinking. Any mechanism that usefully reduces gun violence should be considered. I think the problem can be compared to the fire triangle: if you take away the fuel, oxygen, or heat the fire won’t start, or goes out. Gun violence requires a perpetrator, a victim, and a gun. Removal of any one would forestall the violence. Removing potential victims is probably impossible, and revealing the perpetrator beforehand can be very difficult as well, so that leaves removing the guns as the most productive option. I think anybody who is serious about reducing gun violence must consider it.

    “Australian actors who have played James Bond.” George Lazenby. That was simple.

    “[G]randpa’s Lee Enfield” Yeah. I used them in Cadets, in fact as a schoolboy I was the proud custodian of the keys to 118 SMLEs (plus eight disabled Bren guns and a few battered bugles). They were a serious piece of gear, although probably not suited to jungle warfare, or home defence for that matter. Being a bolt action rifle their rate of fire is not great, although that didn’t stop one handy lad who managed to get off 38 rounds in one “mad minute” (that requires four magazine changes). Being a full battle rifle (not a lightweight assault riffle) the recoil was considerable, as was its range and penetrating ability. A bullet would probably go right through any house not built of brick or stone, putting your neighbours at risk if you were defending your own home.

    If you really need something with that firepower, or an assault rifle, for defence then maybe you are living in a sick society. Personally I can’t believe that US society is really that dysfunctional.

  45. phil says

    “adorable/murderous wildlife”

    I feel it necessary to make clear that the wildlife is adorable or murderous. Well, apart from the dropbears of course. Unless you think that snakes are adorable, or great hairy spiders. Or sharks. Or irukandji and box jellyfish. Blue ringed octopus can have a sort of beauty about them I suppose. Mostly if it’s furry it is probably safe, although I heard that the Tasmanian devil has twice the power in its bite that a Doberman has, and they seem universally bad tempered as well.

  46. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    I don’t want to get too bogged down in the larger issue (unless you really insist), but this one minor thing is one of my pet peeves.
    assault rifle
    That is a bullshit and fictitious term that has no bearing on reality. There is no possible definition of that term that makes sense in the real world. You can talk about bolt action rifles, semiauto rifles, rifles of certain calibers, and so forth. It is a fact that many so-called assault rifles are functionally indistinguishable from standard hunting rifles. The only difference is literally cosmetic – one is painted black and looks scary, and the other isn’t.

    My favorite example on this point.

    The fucker senator Dianne Feinstein from my home state of California proposed a new assault weapons ban. Here’s the full text.
    http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=9a9270d5-ce4d-49fb-9b2f-69e69f517fb4
    There is a list of explicitly banned weapons, and there is a list of explicitly allowed weapons.

    On the list of explicitly allowed weapons is this:
    > Ruger Mini-14 (w/o folding stock)
    My understanding is that the Ruger Mini-14 is a popular hunting rifle, and it’s considered by many to be a hunting rifle.

    On the list of explicitly banned weapons is this:
    > Sturm, Ruger Mini-14 Tactical Rife M–14/20CF.

    On the banned list is the exact same gun – more or less.

    You can see the pictures of both variants on the wikipedia page:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruger_Mini-14

    One has a scary black finish, and the other has a “hunting rifle” wood finish. Both weapons take a detachable box magazine of the same size. They both fire the same kind of bullet, at the same rate of fire, with the same penetration power. The weapons are the same size (give or take the folding stock). It’s literally the same base design. It’s the same weapon.

    The term “assault weapon” has no place in everyday conversations because it’s a bullshit term. Stop using it. If you want, use the term “semiauto rifle with a detachable box magazine”. At least that’s accurate and meaningful. That’s probably also what you’re talking about. However, once you understand what those words mean, you should realize the complete bullshit that they’re trying to sell you with the term “assault weapon”.

    PS: There might be some technical but obscure meaning in certain military handbooks, but 1- that’s not what we’re discussing here because most people in the public and government are not using the word that way, and 2- AFAIK it has to do more with the role of the weapon and slight differences and it still wouldn’t serve as a useful basis for a civilian gun control law.

    PPS: Rifles are only used in a small portion of gun crime anyway, IIRC like 5%. Even for mass murders, a majority of them happened with only handguns. You’re simply not going to dent the problem in any measurable way by focusing on rifles and ignoring handguns. It’s a do-nothing feel-good measure that will distract you from the real problems. At best – it’s just a symbolic political move meant to move the Overton Window in preparation of a policy that will actually do something by also affecting handgun availability.

  47. Joe Cole says

    As a Brit, I will never understand the US attitude to guns. To me it seems madness, but I realise that for many of you it represents a kind of freedom.
    I’ve only got one question. I know you have nearly one gun per capita but how many Americans are gun owners? It always seems that if somebody owns one gun then they are likely to own several. In other words large numbers don’t own any guns, but what are the numbers? Just curious.

  48. says

    Joe: I think the numbers are that there are 88 guns for every 100 American citizens. Granted, that doesn’t go into demographic or other specific details, but it’s a sobering figure.

  49. Joe Cole says

    Sobering indeed. Over here nearly all guns are either shotguns used for game or clayshooting, or rifles for target shooting. No handguns now (I’m delighted to say) and no automatic weapons. The majority of our police do not want to routinely carry weapons. The vast majority of people are more than happy with that.

    The one real difference is that we don’t have the hunting culture that I understand you have. We just don’t have the space
    (or the wildlife) for it that you do. The only thing we have that approaches hunting is stalking for stags in the Scottish Highlands, but that is very much a rich mans sports. We have pheasant shooting elsewhere and farmers do a little shooting of vermin. We also have fox hunting with hounds, but that is a silly “sport”……it’s ridiculously inefficient as a means of controlling foxes and I would prefer to see the hunters being shot rather than the foxes. (fox hunting is now strictly controled and in theory the hunt is not supposed to go looking for foxes. Quite right too. Who on earth thinks that 20 or 30 horseriders charging around the countryside with a pack of 50 hounds is a sensible way to catch one fox in this day and age?) But hunting in the sense of going off into the wilderness just doesn’t happen.