Jim Jeffries misleads on gun control.
This is not a attack on Jim Jeffries, he is a comedian and should be treated as such. In my opinion comedians should be able to do or say what ever they want to get a laugh. He makes some very interesting points. but It seems every time a mass shooting happens this clip is circulated on social media platforms. While Australia is seen and promoted in places like the US as the model of how gun control works. But it hasn’t.
A few thing catch my attention with some of the things he says that are misleading.
He begins talking about the Prime Minister John Howard introducing a nationwide firearm buyback scheme in response to the 1996 Port Arthur massacre and how it seemed to ” Stop” mass shootings. This is true but it did nothing to stop or even reduce gun crime as a new report has shown. The rate of homicide in Australia had been dropping steadily prior to the 1996 buy back and continues to do so today.
- The investigation has found:
- There have been at least 99 shootings in the past 20 months – more than one incident a week since January 2015
- Known criminals were caught with firearms 755 times last year, compared to 143 times in 2011
- Assault rifles and handguns smuggled into Australia via shipments of electronics and metal parts
Not only has gun control laws done nothing to reduce the number of gun related incidents it also cost the Australian tax payer 500 million dollars.
The unfortunate story of the break in he had in Manchester, England is on that when looked into a little more deeply provides some interesting statistics. His home was broken into while he was home, he was tied up robbed and cut. You are far more likely to have your home broken into while you are home in the UK then you are in the US presumably because you are more likely to be able to defend yourself. Criminals say they are far more fearful of a citizen with a gun then a police officer as this only ABC 20/20 in touch clip shows.
The north star of gun control
Australia is hailed as the leading example of how gun control can work but it simply isn’t true homicide continued to decrease as it had been while gun related offences have increased. In America cities with the worst gun crimes have the strictest gun control laws because criminals don’t follow the law.
A recent knife wielding terrorist attack in Melbourne. Could a armed citizen stopped this before he injured people? If he wanted to attack with a gun could he have got one?
The gun control debate is complex. It pits rights against duties. It pits individualism against communitarianism. It pits gun owners against anti-gun activists, and law-abiding citizens against one another. Most of all, it pits “common sense” against evidence.
I’m not really a fan of guns.