A Daily Show Rebuttal

[LarryC]

I think your argument was pretty good however you did make one statement that I disagree with which has made many firearm seller overly fearful when meeting a buyer. Your statement "However, most responsible gun owners want to somehow make sure that the person they're selling a gun to is legally allowed to own a gun because selling a gun knowingly or unknowingly to a person not otherwise allowed to own or legally possess a gun is a felony." is untrue!

The actually law reads (Quoted from the ATF Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide 2005 - received in 2012 with my FFL-03 license) "A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. "

As I interpret it, this means as long as you see a drivers license that verifies the buyer is over 18 and a resident of Indiana, unless he is intoxicated, or show clear signs that he is mentally unbalanced, you are perfectly legal to sell to person. I don't think anyone here having "reasonable cause to believe they are prohibited" would sell to any buyer! So even if they turn out to be a terrorist or Felon, you cannot be held liable.

However I don't think anyone here selling a firearm is likely to meet buyers that are not legal to possess firearms. There is too much chance that the ATF or local LEO's may become involved in the sale. The criminal element is far more likely to purchase firearms from other criminal elements, or steal one etc., than to arrange a meeting over the internet and risk arrest.

 

[Wanderer]

I think we should all be happy that Australians are enjoying less firearms-related crime and deaths. Rather than trying to make conclusions about gun control (which has always been poorly defined), the question you should be asking is, is that Australian result translatable to the US scenario?

If I may jump in here: I personally think that comparing national crime statistics to draw conclusions about whether "gun control works" is rather meaningless. A quick perusal of Wikipedia reveals that Australia has always had considerably lower homicide rates than the US, presumably before its modern gun laws were enacted (Wiki's reporting for Australian figures only goes back to 1970, admittedly). This is why I always grimace when these sorts of debates start heading towards such comparisons; it really doesn't reveal much about the effectiveness of "gun control" laws one way or the other. One can find examples of countries with stricter gun laws than the US that also have lower homicide rates (UK, Australia, most continental Western European countries) and also examples of ones with stricter gun laws and noticeably higher homicide rates in comparison to the US (Russia, Brazil, Mexico, some other Eastern European and Latin American countries).

The only thing one can really tell for sure is that each individual country has its own unique socioeconomic, cultural, geographical and legal situation that is different from that of every other country in the world. This is why I would say that indeed, the Australian solution would not translate well to the US at all, and likewise that of the US would not translate well to Australia either. Each nation, in my opinion, must look within itself and to its own people for answers, not to others.

 

[ncthorn]

If I may jump in here: I personally think that comparing national crime statistics to draw conclusions about whether "gun control works" is rather meaningless. A quick perusal of Wikipedia reveals that Australia has always had considerably lower homicide rates than the US, presumably before its modern gun laws were enacted (Wiki's reporting for Australian figures only goes back to 1970, admittedly). This is why I always grimace when these sorts of debates start heading towards such comparisons; it really doesn't reveal much about the effectiveness of "gun control" laws one way or the other. One can find examples of countries with stricter gun laws than the US that also have lower homicide rates (UK, Australia, most continental Western European countries) and also examples of ones with stricter gun laws and noticeably higher homicide rates in comparison to the US (Russia, Brazil, Mexico, some other Eastern European and Latin American countries).

The only thing one can really tell for sure is that each individual country has its own unique socioeconomic, cultural, geographical and legal situation that is different from that of every other country in the world. This is why I would say that indeed, the Australian solution would not translate well to the US at all, and likewise that of the US would not translate well to Australia either. Each nation, in my opinion, must look within itself and to its own people for answers, not to others.

This is exactly correct. A better analysis would be to consider the crime rates before and after gun control was implemented. Most of the time, this points to little or no change in overall murder rates. Such has certainly been the case in Britain. I have yet to look extensively into the Australia example, but from what I have seen so far, crime rates have always been pretty low there and have not seen a significant drop since the ban.

 

[TopDog]

% homicides with firearms: Aus 11.5, USA 67.5.

This has no meaning. If the guns were gone they would kill each other with different weapons. The weapons are not the problem. A gun NEVER killed anyone with out human intervention. Less guns equal more overall crime, proven by the statics you used as a reference.

People are the problem, people are the killers not the tools.

 

[Roadie]

This is what boggles my mind, because MANY female Libs actually feel this way..

She: I'd rather have violent crime done to individuals who are more likely to recover than gunmen killing masses of people. Violent crimes leave less dead bodies than those same criminals would leave if they had guns.

So, as a woman, she would rather see the higher rape rates in the UK, Canada, and Aus, as long as nobody has guns.. I just don't get how women support this line of thinking..

 

[PistolBob]

How can anyone compare Australia to the United States of America on anything anyway?

Australia is a nation of BARELY 23 million people. We have more than double that in JUST ILLEGALS here.

It's like comparing a ham sandwich to a freight train. Pointless.

 

[Roadie]

How can anyone compare Australia to the United States of America on anything anyway?

Australia is a nation of BARELY 23 million people. We have more than double that in JUST ILLEGALS here.

It's like comparing a ham sandwich to a freight train. Pointless.

Crime RATES such as Rapes per 100K, Violent Crime per 100k, etc.. How is that not "fair"?

 

[PistolBob]

Crime RATES such as Rapes per 100K, Violent Crime per 100k, etc.. How is that not "fair"?

Obviously a lot of people here learned math at a government owned public school...not saying that's all bad but it does explain some of these goofy assed comparisons.

Why not quote the number of rapes per banana eaten? Armed Assaults per import car? Number of Sheilas per pint of Fosters?

Freght Trains to Pineapples....all valid comparisons....that mean virtually nothing.

 

[ncthorn]

Crime RATES such as Rapes per 100K, Violent Crime per 100k, etc.. How is that not "fair"?

Cultural differences. Crime rates weren't that high prior to gun control. You cannot easily compare different societies.

The Folly of Cross-Cultural Comparisons | Modern Rifleman

 

[TopDog]

Cultural differences. Crime rates weren't that high prior to gun control. You cannot easily compare different societies.

The Folly of Cross-Cultural Comparisons | Modern Rifleman

Excellent point and rep sent.

I was stationed in Japan for many years and always thought about how the Japanese on whole as a society was far more polite than Americans. But then they have to be, so many people crowed into a small country, it was learn to get along or kill everyone around you I suppose.

 

[zippy23]

I"ve realized that arguing with liberals is completely pointless, AT THE MOMENT you are arguing, the conversation NEEDS to take place, they need to at least hear the other side of the argument. The ONLY thing that will change their mind is a life event, something that happens to them directly that will change their minds, your conversation with them will resonate in their mind later on, especially when something happens to them and they go, "ya know what, John(or whoever) told me this and was right", no one will change their mind until they are directly affected by their own stupidity. But the conversation needs to be had. they NEED to hear the message, whether they agree or not, at least they have heard it. Then when the time comes, they will make a decision, and knowing both sides helps you make a great decision. keep it up!

 

[ncthorn]

I"ve realized that arguing with liberals is completely pointless, AT THE MOMENT you are arguing, the conversation NEEDS to take place, they need to at least hear the other side of the argument. The ONLY thing that will change their mind is a life event, something that happens to them directly that will change their minds, your conversation with them will resonate in their mind later on, especially when something happens to them and they go, "ya know what, John(or whoever) told me this and was right", no one will change their mind until they are directly affected by their own stupidity. But the conversation needs to be had. they NEED to hear the message, whether they agree or not, at least they have heard it. Then when the time comes, they will make a decision, and knowing both sides helps you make a great decision. keep it up!

Yes exactly. They do tend to operate on emotional and anecdotes. The key is planting the seed so that if they do have some sort of life experience, they might be inclined to think differently. That and as we have seen, few on that side are truly enthusiastic about their cause.

 

[Double T]

Meaningless, because of how "crime" is defined in that site (NationMaster - Crime Statistics) . It includes embezzlement, bribery, even software piracy! Yes, there are more software pirates in Australia, 28% vs 20% in the US. Crime rates per country is no metric for gun-related stats.




But almost same number of assault incidences: 797 in Australia vs. 786.7 in the US (Assaults statistics - Countries Compared - NationMaster). An assault victim can be someone who got a scratch on an arm to someone being hospitalized. They're not all equal.

The only meaningful statistical metrics to look at are those that involve firearms. The story there is crystal clear.

So then why the hell are you quoting a slanted stat? Do you own a gun? this IS indiana gun owners...

 

[Robjps]

When ever someone brings up the Aussie side, I just quickly point out how fast home invasions are growing there and ask them if they simply prefer to be beaten stabbed and raped in their own home instead.

 

[88E30M50]

We really need to change the term for what we call 'Liberals' today. There is nothing liberal about their mindset. They are some of the most close minded people you could meet. Personally, I think they should be called 'Emotionally Immature' because that is what they are. They are clinging to a mindset that includes a parent protector figure. Use facts and figures and their mind shuts of until you stop talking. They are the masters of small facts sliced out of bigger pictures to make their point (as evidenced by Bogan).

 

[atalon]

I am a bit surprised at your comment regarding NICS. Personally, I think NICS works pretty well. Case in point. Adam Lanza about a week or two before he went totally bonkers, tried to buy an AR15 at a licensed gun shop in Conn. He was turned down because he failed the approval from NICS. Granted, this did not stop him from murdering his mother and stealing her guns. But the point is that the NICS background check system DID work as it is supposed to work.

This is because the NICS system is only a cheaper band aid instead of making sure people that need help or should not be left in society are actually taken care of. We got rid of those places because they just became human experimentation hell holes because no one wanted to think about them or spend the money. Wars and giving tax breaks to the rich are more important to the politicians. This is what we get when we allow politicians to pay themselves and approve their own raises among other things.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Absolutely gun control works. I'm sure he'll be covering how well it worked in Mexico next week. What? Oh, right, its an abject failure in Mexico.

Ah, well then I'm sure he'll cover how Qatar has basically zero street crime, but you can native citizens can own fully automatic weapons with little to no restriction. What? Oh, right, because that's totally different.

Gun control has very limited affect on crime. Economics matter. Culture matters. Criminal justice matters. Population density matters.

An area of wealthy agrarians spread out over huge plots of land won't have as much crime as a densely populated area of the urban poor. A country where drug dealers are beheaded won't have as much drug related violence as a country who's major exporters are drug cartels. Gun control won't change any of that one iota.

 

[PaxRomana]

What was also missed in all of this is that despite the increasing number of firearms in this country, the murder rate and violent crime rates in general have been going down steadily over the last twenty+ years. FBI.gov has all the stats you could ever want on this topic, and they are also "crystal clear". The ONLY place where murder and gun crime has risen is in a few select urban areas. (all leftist run utopias btw) This more a matter of certain communities taking care of their own internal problems than gun control. Even if Diane Feinsteins greatest wish came true, all of us were stripped of our right to defend ourselves and every US gun manufacturer was put out of business, it would not matter. Within days, guns by the thousands would pour over our "secure" borders to feed the criminal black market. None of those would be traceable in anyway of course...I love it when anti-gun folks attempt to use statistics to back their argument. Most of them have figured out by now that the stats do not back them up so they stick to emotional appeals. Every now and then you get one though....

 

[LarryC]

I am a bit surprised at your comment regarding NICS. Personally, I think NICS works pretty well. Case in point. Adam Lanza about a week or two before he went totally bonkers, tried to buy an AR15 at a licensed gun shop in Conn. He was turned down because he failed the approval from NICS. Granted, this did not stop him from murdering his mother and stealing her guns. But the point is that the NICS background check system DID work as it is supposed to work.

It is my understanding the entire "purpose" of the NCIS check was to prevent firearms from getting into the hands of those illegal to possess them. Yes it did prevent him from purchasing from a gun dealer. However he obtained a firearm. Therefore it is a complete failure.

This is true with all "Gun Control laws", they only prevent or make it more expensive / harder for honest citizens from purchasing firearms. Criminals will obtain them in illegal ways. Passing new laws only affect Law abiding citizens.

As most everyone acquainted with the crime rates and firearms understand, the data from crimes committed by felons with firearms has not statistically diminished a significant amount since the NCIS check law has been in effect.