If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(YouTube)   How Americans can avoid and ignore gun control: The Daily Show's John Oliver reports   (youtube.com) divider line 121
    More: Satire, Australians, Comedy Central  
•       •       •

3733 clicks; posted to Video » on 27 Apr 2013 at 11:12 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



121 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-27 06:23:28 AM  
I thought the interview rocked :D
 
2013-04-27 06:44:21 AM  
Brilliant bit there, mate.
 
2013-04-27 07:05:38 AM  
Classic.


/wants to move to Australia now, less crazy it seems
 
2013-04-27 07:14:23 AM  

PreMortem: /wants to move to Australia now, less crazy it seems


Well, bye.
 
2013-04-27 07:23:10 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-04-27 08:59:00 AM  
I think that's my favorite segment from Oliver ever. Emmy material.

Colbert couldn't have done it any better. Well, maybe a little.
 
2013-04-27 09:03:54 AM  
Personally I think part 2 is the most telling of the differences between Australian politicians and their US counterparts.

Almost as telling as the young girl - probably born before it all - says WTF, because she's got no idea of the supposed "freedoms" she's missing out on.

/YMMV
 
2013-04-27 09:29:24 AM  
Smashing idea! Perhaps Mr. Stewart et al would like to give it a test run. He could start in Chicago. Tell everyone that they must turn in all firearms and then it they wish to purchase one, they must go through various levels of registration.

It will work!
 
2013-04-27 09:45:05 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Smashing idea! Perhaps Mr. Stewart et al would like to give it a test run. He could start in Chicago. Tell everyone that they must turn in all firearms and then it they wish to purchase one, they must go through various levels of registration.

It will work!


I like how you ignored EVERY part of reality in favor of just snarkily wanking your own personal opinions. Well done.
 
2013-04-27 09:59:23 AM  

LasersHurt: I like how you ignored EVERY part of reality in favor of just snarkily wanking your own personal opinions. Well done.


I mean it. Let's use Chicago as a test platform. If it works there, we'll go nationwide.

The only thing that might cause a problem is verification...how would that be accomplished?
 
2013-04-27 10:01:41 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: LasersHurt: I like how you ignored EVERY part of reality in favor of just snarkily wanking your own personal opinions. Well done.

I mean it. Let's use Chicago as a test platform. If it works there, we'll go nationwide.

The only thing that might cause a problem is verification...how would that be accomplished?


Surely you see the problem with trying to create a single island of gunlessness in a sea of guns? It's something that has to be done at a national level to be effective.
 
2013-04-27 10:11:52 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: LasersHurt: I like how you ignored EVERY part of reality in favor of just snarkily wanking your own personal opinions. Well done.

I mean it. Let's use Chicago as a test platform. If it works there, we'll go nationwide.

The only thing that might cause a problem is verification...how would that be accomplished?


Okay I have to ask, if the police grab you for something - after proper regulation is installed - and find an unlicensed firearm, well depending on the subject of your arrest I would think this should up the stakes considerably in sentencing.

This happens already, why do you think it won't work?
 
2013-04-27 10:14:19 AM  

LasersHurt: Surely you see the problem with trying to create a single island of gunlessness in a sea of guns? It's something that has to be done at a national level to be effective.


Fair nuff. So, how would compliance be verified.

Tahs4Evar: Okay I have to ask, if the police grab you for something - after proper regulation is installed - and find an unlicensed firearm, well depending on the subject of your arrest I would think this should up the stakes considerably in sentencing.


And if they don't "grab you for something" how would you verify compliance? I guess you could always go with the honor system.
 
2013-04-27 10:19:57 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: LasersHurt: Surely you see the problem with trying to create a single island of gunlessness in a sea of guns? It's something that has to be done at a national level to be effective.

Fair nuff. So, how would compliance be verified.


I couldn't tell you, I haven't done nearly enough research on the matter. It would require studying how it was done in Australia, since that's our model, and then carefully adapting and compensating for the many unique factors of America.
 
2013-04-27 10:23:59 AM  

LasersHurt: I couldn't tell you, I haven't done nearly enough research on the matter. It would require studying how it was done in Australia, since that's our model, and then carefully adapting and compensating for the many unique factors of America.


Well, Australia didn't have something like the second amendment...nor the fourth I would assume (please chime in Aussie legal experts) so, I suppose doing away with both of those would be a good start.
 
2013-04-27 10:24:47 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: LasersHurt: I couldn't tell you, I haven't done nearly enough research on the matter. It would require studying how it was done in Australia, since that's our model, and then carefully adapting and compensating for the many unique factors of America.

Well, Australia didn't have something like the second amendment...nor the fourth I would assume (please chime in Aussie legal experts) so, I suppose doing away with both of those would be a good start.


Now why in the world would you need to violate the 4th amendment?
 
2013-04-27 10:28:32 AM  
hehe. walkabout. didgeridoo.
 
2013-04-27 10:34:51 AM  

LasersHurt: Now why in the world would you need to violate the 4th amendment?


How else would you force compliance? This is a grave matter requiring the utmost diligence. You know that there will be gun nuts that will not turn in their firearms. It's the only way to be sure.
 
2013-04-27 10:36:40 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: And if they don't "grab you for something" how would you verify compliance? I guess you could always go with the honor system.


Yep. That's about it. No one gets any problems until they come into contact with a LEO. Any time you have an illegal firearm in your possession or on your property you would then be charged with that offence on top of the offence the LEO was investigating. And I'd guess that would elevate the offence quite considerably (assuming someone adopts actual gun controls).
 
2013-04-27 10:41:09 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: LasersHurt: Now why in the world would you need to violate the 4th amendment?

How else would you force compliance? This is a grave matter requiring the utmost diligence. You know that there will be gun nuts that will not turn in their firearms. It's the only way to be sure.


You simply run the program. It's illegal to keep them. Some people will, sure, and they'll slowly get weeded out over time (the owners will just die, the guns will be discovered and the owner fined/arrested (whatever the law would require). You don't have to go door to door manually removing them by force - A lot of people will comply. Some won't, but won't ever do anything bad with them so it's a wash. And a few will keep them and commit crimes, but that number will dwindle over time due to simple unavailability.

You don't HAVE to violate the 4th amendment. You can let people make criminals of themselves. In a lot of cases, it won't ever matter. In the general sense, however, it works out in the end.
 
2013-04-27 10:52:02 AM  

LasersHurt: You simply run the program. It's illegal to keep them. Some people will, sure, and they'll slowly get weeded out over time (the owners will just die, the guns will be discovered and the owner fined/arrested (whatever the law would require). You don't have to go door to door manually removing them by force - A lot of people will comply. Some won't, but won't ever do anything bad with them so it's a wash. And a few will keep them and commit crimes, but that number will dwindle over time due to simple unavailability.


I think you underestimate the complexity. The right to keep and bear arms has been part of the American fabric for almost 222 years. This is not something that will fade away over time. The only way that something on this scale could be completed would be by forced compliance. I suppose the first phase would be easy. People like me who have legally purchased firearms over the years are easy to track and by the fact that I have gone through background checks, obtaining a warrant to assure my compliance would be easy. My purchase is probable cause enough to search me. However, there are a to of firearms out there that have not been purchased in a traceable fashion. Simply thinking that over the course of time that these guns will surface in numbers great enough to make some dent in their existence is naive at best. No, if you're going to disarm the population of America in any way that will have some lasting effect, you're going to have to take drastic measures.
 
2013-04-27 10:55:24 AM  

LasersHurt: And a few will keep them and commit crimes, but that number will dwindle over time due to simple unavailability.


So it's not instantly and universally effective the moment it's enacted. Probably shouldn't bother, I guess.
 
2013-04-27 11:02:33 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: LasersHurt: You simply run the program. It's illegal to keep them. Some people will, sure, and they'll slowly get weeded out over time (the owners will just die, the guns will be discovered and the owner fined/arrested (whatever the law would require). You don't have to go door to door manually removing them by force - A lot of people will comply. Some won't, but won't ever do anything bad with them so it's a wash. And a few will keep them and commit crimes, but that number will dwindle over time due to simple unavailability.

I think you underestimate the complexity. The right to keep and bear arms has been part of the American fabric for almost 222 years. This is not something that will fade away over time. The only way that something on this scale could be completed would be by forced compliance. I suppose the first phase would be easy. People like me who have legally purchased firearms over the years are easy to track and by the fact that I have gone through background checks, obtaining a warrant to assure my compliance would be easy. My purchase is probable cause enough to search me. However, there are a to of firearms out there that have not been purchased in a traceable fashion. Simply thinking that over the course of time that these guns will surface in numbers great enough to make some dent in their existence is naive at best. No, if you're going to disarm the population of America in any way that will have some lasting effect, you're going to have to take drastic measures.


So we can't do it, because in your paranoid mind there is no way to do it that is not horrible. Neat.
 
2013-04-27 11:08:26 AM  
I admit that I don't closely follow such things, but I had the idea that background check had to be destroyed within 24 hours.
 
2013-04-27 11:09:27 AM  

LasersHurt: So we can't do it, because in your paranoid mind there is no way to do it that is not horrible


I think it can be done.
 
2013-04-27 11:19:58 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: LasersHurt: So we can't do it, because in your paranoid mind there is no way to do it that is not horrible

I think it can be done.


That doesn't refute that you seem to think it requires violating the 4th amendment.
 
2013-04-27 11:20:35 AM  
Will there be compensation?
I'm concerned because firearms are expensive and I've paid a lot of money for mine. It seems unconstitutional to seize my assets and not compensate me for them.
 
2013-04-27 11:22:08 AM  

Ivandrago: It seems unconstitutional to seize my assets


It is. Recompense be damned.
 
2013-04-27 11:23:00 AM  

LasersHurt: That doesn't refute that you seem to think it requires violating the 4th amendment.


Violating? It will take repeal.
 
2013-04-27 11:23:12 AM  

PreMortem: Classic.


/wants to move to Australia now, less crazy it seems


Indiana? Yeah, they'll miss you like they miss their teeth.
 
2013-04-27 11:24:46 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: LasersHurt: That doesn't refute that you seem to think it requires violating the 4th amendment.

Violating? It will take repeal.


Why? You haven't justified it other than saying "it's hard so you have to." Why, specifically, would you need to repeal that?

I mean you even mentioned them getting warrants in one of your posts.
 
2013-04-27 11:29:14 AM  

LasersHurt: Why? You haven't justified it other than saying "it's hard so you have to." Why, specifically, would you need to repeal that?


Really?
 
2013-04-27 11:30:24 AM  

LasersHurt: Why? You haven't justified it other than saying "it's hard so you have to." Why, specifically, would you need to repeal that?

I mean you even mentioned them getting warrants in one of your posts.


Indeed I did. Once you get past making sure people like me who have legally purchased and own firearms , you're got to find those that were purchased illegally. The goal is to get if not all a vast majority of firearms out of the public's hands right? You have probable cause to search me since I have made a traceable purchase. But in order to make sure that everyone else has complied, you're going to have to shake down everyone else. Like I said,to think that "over time" people are just going to give them up is naive at best.
 
2013-04-27 11:34:19 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: LasersHurt: Why? You haven't justified it other than saying "it's hard so you have to." Why, specifically, would you need to repeal that?

I mean you even mentioned them getting warrants in one of your posts.

Indeed I did. Once you get past making sure people like me who have legally purchased and own firearms , you're got to find those that were purchased illegally. The goal is to get if not all a vast majority of firearms out of the public's hands right? You have probable cause to search me since I have made a traceable purchase. But in order to make sure that everyone else has complied, you're going to have to shake down everyone else. Like I said,to think that "over time" people are just going to give them up is naive at best.


You're begging the question, presuming that you HAVE to do this because you HAVE to go door to door in violation of the 4th because there's NO OTHER WAY.

I don't accept that premise to begin with, so I don't accept your argument.

R.A.Danny: LasersHurt: Why? You haven't justified it other than saying "it's hard so you have to." Why, specifically, would you need to repeal that?

Really?


Yes. Myself and others have laid out explanations of why you do not actually need to forcefully search, in violation of the 4th, to find every single gun.
 
2013-04-27 11:38:22 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: LasersHurt: That doesn't refute that you seem to think it requires violating the 4th amendment.

Violating? It will take repeal.


Why? They just violated it at least hundreds of times in the Boston area. I think you underestimate the ruthlessness and arrogance with which the government does this every day.They just don't care.
 
2013-04-27 11:39:35 AM  
And what was conveniently left out?

Australian Government violent crime statistics

www.aic.gov.au

Since the ban, violent crime rates have stayed static ... except for incidents of assault, which have increased significantly.  In other words, the only thing banning guns did was increase the rate of violent assaults.
 
2013-04-27 11:41:23 AM  

SunsetLament: And what was conveniently left out?

Australian Government violent crime statistics

[www.aic.gov.au image 600x344]

Since the ban, violent crime rates have stayed static ... except for incidents of assault, which have increased significantly.  In other words, the only thing banning guns did was increase the rate of violent assaults.


You think this is causal? Somehow, not having guns - causes MORE conflicts?
 
2013-04-27 11:43:27 AM  

SunsetLament: Since the ban, violent crime rates have stayed static ... except for incidents of assault, which have increased significantly. In other words, the only thing banning guns did was increase the rate of violent assaults.


You conveniently ignored the fact that the homicide rate went from 1.9 per 100,000 to 1.3 per 100,000.  Also, correlation is not causation.  The only thing you can actually measure is the incidents of shootings.
 
2013-04-27 11:43:27 AM  

LasersHurt: Yes. Myself and others have laid out explanations of why you do not actually need to forcefully search, in violation of the 4th, to find every single gun.


Yes we still have illegally owned weapons. Bollox.
 
2013-04-27 11:44:32 AM  

R.A.Danny: LasersHurt: Yes. Myself and others have laid out explanations of why you do not actually need to forcefully search, in violation of the 4th, to find every single gun.

Yes we still have illegally owned weapons. Bollox.


So now you are NOT trying to argue about the 4th? Moved on from that, eh?
 
2013-04-27 11:44:59 AM  

LasersHurt: You're begging the question, presuming that you HAVE to do this because you HAVE to go door to door in violation of the 4th because there's NO OTHER WAY.

I don't accept that premise to begin with, so I don't accept your argument.


So you're sticking with, "the people that will break the law and keep their guns will just give them up over time".

Your parents never told you about Santa Claus did they?

Krumet: Why? They just violated it at least hundreds of times in the Boston area. I think you underestimate the ruthlessness and arrogance with which the government does this every day.They just don't care.


Well, there's that too.
 
2013-04-27 11:46:06 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: LasersHurt: You're begging the question, presuming that you HAVE to do this because you HAVE to go door to door in violation of the 4th because there's NO OTHER WAY.

I don't accept that premise to begin with, so I don't accept your argument.

So you're sticking with, "the people that will break the law and keep their guns will just give them up over time".

Your parents never told you about Santa Claus did they?


If you don't have a rebuttal, that's fine, but don't be childish.
 
2013-04-27 11:47:58 AM  
The second video in the series is probably the best work i've seen him do. He's learning some journalistic chops from Stewart
 
2013-04-27 11:49:42 AM  

LasersHurt: R.A.Danny: LasersHurt: Yes. Myself and others have laid out explanations of why you do not actually need to forcefully search, in violation of the 4th, to find every single gun.

Yes we still have illegally owned weapons. Bollox.

So now you are NOT trying to argue about the 4th? Moved on from that, eh?


No, I am arguing that you cannot enforce getting people to turn in their weapons without breaking the Fourth.
 
2013-04-27 11:53:05 AM  

LasersHurt: If you don't have a rebuttal, that's fine, but don't be childish


Ok...let's do it without the sarcasm:

Dancin_In_Anson: So you're sticking with, "the people that will break the law and keep their guns will just give them up over time".

 
2013-04-27 11:54:41 AM  

R.A.Danny: LasersHurt: R.A.Danny: LasersHurt: Yes. Myself and others have laid out explanations of why you do not actually need to forcefully search, in violation of the 4th, to find every single gun.

Yes we still have illegally owned weapons. Bollox.

So now you are NOT trying to argue about the 4th? Moved on from that, eh?

No, I am arguing that you cannot enforce getting people to turn in their weapons without breaking the Fourth.


Why? Why can't cases of "illegal possession" be prosecuted through normal channels, searches be executed with warrants, etc?

Someone who gives off no impression of having illegal guns would probably never be investigated, in the first place. But whoever does get investigated, if it's done through the proper channels?

/again, we're assuming we're in a timeline where the 2nd has been repealed and guns made illegal
 
2013-04-27 11:58:05 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: LasersHurt: If you don't have a rebuttal, that's fine, but don't be childish

Ok...let's do it without the sarcasm:

Dancin_In_Anson: So you're sticking with, "the people that will break the law and keep their guns will just give them up over time".


Kind of? It's a gross oversimplification of something complex, but that seems to be your style. Many will be just ornery folk who never commit crimes with them. Maybe they get old and die, and their family doesn't want them. Or does, and keeps them but also never kills anyone.

Then there are proper criminals, who will probably use them, but they will also be much more vulnerable to identification and prosecution. And without a steady flow of guns for the black market, that will wane over time as well.

I don't expect overnight change. America is not Australia, we can't do precisely the same things. But IF we were to hypothetically do this, I maintain that it can be done without removing the 4th amendment.
 
2013-04-27 11:58:56 AM  

LasersHurt: Why? Why can't cases of "illegal possession" be prosecuted through normal channels, searches be executed with warrants, etc?


Do these firearms somehow have homing beacons that will tip the police off as to their location?
Are they immobile?
Are there no organized crime gangs to move their firearms about?
Because this is already happening in a very sophisticated manner.

LasersHurt: /again, we're assuming we're in a timeline where the 2nd has been repealed and guns made illegal


Never gonna happen. Ever.


I'm starting to think the whole Santa Clause conversation is more feasible than your cockamamie ideas.
 
2013-04-27 11:59:47 AM  

LasersHurt: America is not Australia


And our goal is to never be Australia.
 
2013-04-27 12:01:49 PM  

R.A.Danny: LasersHurt: Why? Why can't cases of "illegal possession" be prosecuted through normal channels, searches be executed with warrants, etc?

Do these firearms somehow have homing beacons that will tip the police off as to their location?
Are they immobile?
Are there no organized crime gangs to move their firearms about?
Because this is already happening in a very sophisticated manner.


Things can change - you're wrong to assume that's immutable and permanent. It's really hard to adequately pursue, track, identify, and manage guns now, but you've got to think that's going to change somewhat if there are no more legal guns.

Kind of makes certain types of activity stand out like a sore thumb.

LasersHurt: /again, we're assuming we're in a timeline where the 2nd has been repealed and guns made illegal

Never gonna happen. Ever.


I don't think it will happen either. I'm talking about the ideas being presented without saying "we absolutely have to do this." I'm sorry if you cannot comprehend that.

Specifically, I have been challenging the idea that you would need to violate or remove the 4th amendment to enact similar laws. That, specifically and narrowly, is my argument, and it's only as a function of this hypothetical situation.
 
Displayed 50 of 121 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report