Originally Posted By: buster
Australian comedian Jim Jefferies was the victim of a home invasion once. He was tied up and beaten, and his girlfriend was threatened with rape. So you might think he'd sympathize with the idea that Americans want guns to protect their families. Quite the opposite — he does an excellent job of summing up
why so many foreigners are baffled by America's gun culture:
In Australia, we had the biggest massacre on Earth, and the Australian government went: "That's it! NO MORE GUNS." And we all went, "Yeah, all right then, that seems fair enough, really."
Now in America, you had the Sandy Hook massacre, where little tiny children died. And your government went, "Maybe ... we'll get rid of the big guns?" And 50 percent of you went, "EFF YOU, DON'T TAKE MY GUNS."
He continues with a blistering smackdown of the idea that Americans seek guns to keep their families safe:
You have guns because you like guns! That's why you go to gun conventions; that's why you read gun magazines! None of you give a bleep about home security. None of you go to home security conventions. None of you read Padlock Monthly. None of you have a Facebook picture of you behind a secure door.
He doesn't see at all how a gun would have helped him when his home was broken into.
"I was naked at the time. I wasn't wearing my holster." How exactly would a gun have protected him? he asks. Was he supposed to be crouched at his windowsill, gun cocked, waiting on high alert for intruders?
By the way. Most people who are breaking into your house just want your [censored] TV! You think that people are coming to murder your family? How many ***** enemies do you have?"
That was designed to be entertainment and taking it seriously is like taking legal advice from Carrot top.
Here's a nice graph showing the Australian homicide rate:
And another showing the rate of homicides with guns and knives:
You'll notice the rate with guns was already on decline before the mass shooting and subsequent ban (1995) and that stabbings were increasing. Both trends continued.
And yet another graph:
Showing that all forms of robbery increased immediately after the ban.
The reason for all of this is not surprising. Criminals by definition do not follow laws, so banning this and that, further regulating this and that, if they are already law breaking individuals why do you suddenly feel that drumming up another law is going to somehow change that fact? It isn't!
Getting guns out of the hands of those who already have them illegally would actually be effective; dealing with the criminal element and not targeting the law abiding. But that's difficult and so just drumming up new laws make all the hand-wringers sleep easier despite them being no safer than they were before. Restricting freedoms of the law abiding is easy, because these people are already following the laws in place, of course they will follow the new ones, they don't want to be punished! But that's exactly what's happening, they are being punished by the government they expect to protect them, extorted through taxes to pay for this additional "protection" all the while the criminal element is being pursued by law enforcement at the same rate before and after, so the danger level never changes. It's all a sham designed to placate those who lack the ability of critical thought.
I'm all for proper licensing and training for firearms ownership along with safe storage practices, all things we have in Canada. It is a reasonable compromise, ensuring that those who handle and own firearms are properly equipped to do so.
