• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tucker Carlson promotes Fake News about gun laws in Oz

Rob Larrikin

Rob Larrikin

Thunderstrzok
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 20, 2017
Messages
3,099
Reaction score
278
Location
Gold Coast, Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I like Tucker, and watch him most days. I agree with about 75% of what he says. He makes mistakes though, probably because he was a libertarian once, and still has a few flaky views of his own.

I hate it when he talks about religion and guns, because he gets just about everything wrong on those subjects.

Today he ranted about Australia’s gun laws, and got it wrong as usual. You can see the video and article here:

https://www.mediamatters.org/video/...america-recipe-bloodshed-and-civil-war/219402

I will reproduce his statement below, with my answers to each point:

Tucker: …the Australian law wasn't gun control and it wasn't a voluntary buyback, no matter what they tell you.
Larrikin: It was both.
Tucker: It was gun confiscation, a wholesale mandatory disarmament of the entire civilian population.
Larrikin: If that’s true, why are there so many gun shops in Oz? gun shops - Google Search There are plenty of guns in Australia. The assault rifles etc. were banned, but plenty of others were not.
Tucker: Imagine what would happen if you tried that here in this country.
Larrikin: The same thing that happened in Australia. Aussies love their guns almost as much as Americans.
Tucker: America is not Australia for a bunch of reasons including our history, and our Bill of Rights.
Larrikin: They both had the same mother, so we’re not talking Mercury and Jupiter here. We’re talking one kind of apple vs another kind of apple.
Tucker: Imagine federal officials marching from house to house, seizing hundreds of millions of firearms from law-abiding citizens…
Larrikin: That’s not what happened. Some people took their now illegal crowd-killing guns to their local police station and received compensation. Others didn’t. Hundreds of thousands of Aussies handed in nothing. Cops don’t particularly care, either. I rang them about a woman I knew, ten years ago, who has a non-licensed rifle (who threatened to shoot a friend of mine with it) and they didn’t even bother to ask her about it. She still has it. Sure, the cops sound concerned on TV, but do very little about it in real life.
Tucker: …and then fining and imprisoning those who resist.
Larrikin: Yeah, like the woman down the street from me, who still has her illegal rifle, and as far as I know is still threatening people with it.
Tucker: In fact, it's a recipe for bloodshed and civil war. It's nuts. It's a common fantasy on the left.
Larrikin: Yes, the Left have plenty of crazy fantasies. You also have one, about Australian gun laws.
 
Tucker got a little emotional... You got em.
 
Rob Larrikin said:
I like Tucker, and watch him most days. I agree with about 75% of what he says. He makes mistakes though, probably because he was a libertarian once, and still has a few flaky views of his own.

I hate it when he talks about religion and guns, because he gets just about everything wrong on those subjects.

Today he ranted about Australia’s gun laws, and got it wrong as usual. You can see the video and article here:

https://www.mediamatters.org/video/...america-recipe-bloodshed-and-civil-war/219402

I will reproduce his statement below, with my answers to each point:

Tucker: …the Australian law wasn't gun control and it wasn't a voluntary buyback, no matter what they tell you.
Larrikin: It was both.
Tucker: It was gun confiscation, a wholesale mandatory disarmament of the entire civilian population.
Larrikin: If that’s true, why are there so many gun shops in Oz? gun shops - Google Search There are plenty of guns in Australia. The assault rifles etc. were banned, but plenty of others were not.
Tucker: Imagine what would happen if you tried that here in this country.
Larrikin: The same thing that happened in Australia. Aussies love their guns almost as much as Americans.
Tucker: America is not Australia for a bunch of reasons including our history, and our Bill of Rights.
Larrikin: They both had the same mother, so we’re not talking Mercury and Jupiter here. We’re talking one kind of apple vs another kind of apple.
Tucker: Imagine federal officials marching from house to house, seizing hundreds of millions of firearms from law-abiding citizens…
Larrikin: That’s not what happened. Some people took their now illegal crowd-killing guns to their local police station and received compensation. Others didn’t. Hundreds of thousands of Aussies handed in nothing. Cops don’t particularly care, either. I rang them about a woman I knew, ten years ago, who has a non-licensed rifle (who threatened to shoot a friend of mine with it) and they didn’t even bother to ask her about it. She still has it. Sure, the cops sound concerned on TV, but do very little about it in real life.
Tucker: …and then fining and imprisoning those who resist.
Larrikin: Yeah, like the woman down the street from me, who still has her illegal rifle, and as far as I know is still threatening people with it.
Tucker: In fact, it's a recipe for bloodshed and civil war. It's nuts. It's a common fantasy on the left.
Larrikin: Yes, the Left have plenty of crazy fantasies. You also have one, about Australian gun laws.
Click to expand...
So there are still people in Australia who have guns. How many guns are estimated to still remain in private hands and what happens if someone is found to possess one?
 
"Fake news" on Fox is simply an oxymoron. Fox is now advertised as "Entertainment" and not "News".
 
Fletch said:
So there are still people in Australia who have guns.
Click to expand...
“Guns” were never banned in Australia. Only “a type of gun” was banned.

Say you wanted to ban a certain person from a club. The guy in question would stalk women and molest them. So you ban him. Would you then go around saying the club “bans all humans”? They take the sentence “Australia banned some very dangerous (crowd killing) guns” and change it to, “Australia banned ALL guns” and they do this for decades, with no shame.

The people who want gun control will get their way in the U.S., in time.

How many guns are estimated to still remain in private hands
Click to expand...

Estimates are hard because those who kept their guns aren’t telling anyone. As for the cops, most are pretty lethargic on the issue. The only time they’ll jump up and make a big deal about it is when someone commits a crime with said illegal gun. The rest of the time they reckon they’ve got more important things to worry about. So, it’s a law that you have when you don’t really have a law.

and what happens if someone is found to possess one?
Click to expand...

The cops charge him, they go to court, the guy says he didn’t realize, yada, yada, yada and a limp wristed judge gives him a slap on the wrist. If he committed a crime with said gun, then they get serious and will throw the book at him.

The best way to look at it is to compare it with your own prohibition of alcohol. It was supposed to be illegal but nobody took that seriously. Everyone was drinking away as usual. Some academics from time to time would talk about how great it was to be a non-drinking nation, and millions of people would chortle and scoff at him. So sure, the guns are banned down under, and academics like to talk about how there are no guns. Look at the thousands of gun shops around Australia. How do they make money if there are no guns?

Me, I got rid of my own rifle way back in 1983 when my brother in law almost shot me with it. He was inspecting it, and stupidly pointed it in my direction, then accidently pulled the trigger. The bullet shaved my jacket. Now if I had been more of a gun nut I would have kept it, and ignored the gun hand in, in which case I’d still have it. There was never any search of people’s properties or anything like that – those are Tucker’s wild dreams in action. He’s a nice guy, but sheesh, what an imagination.
 
Rob Larrikin said:
“Guns” were never banned in Australia. Only “a type of gun” was banned.

Say you wanted to ban a certain person from a club. The guy in question would stalk women and molest them. So you ban him. Would you then go around saying the club “bans all humans”? They take the sentence “Australia banned some very dangerous (crowd killing) guns” and change it to, “Australia banned ALL guns” and they do this for decades, with no shame.

The people who want gun control will get their way in the U.S., in time.



Estimates are hard because those who kept their guns aren’t telling anyone. As for the cops, most are pretty lethargic on the issue. The only time they’ll jump up and make a big deal about it is when someone commits a crime with said illegal gun. The rest of the time they reckon they’ve got more important things to worry about. So, it’s a law that you have when you don’t really have a law.



The cops charge him, they go to court, the guy says he didn’t realize, yada, yada, yada and a limp wristed judge gives him a slap on the wrist. If he committed a crime with said gun, then they get serious and will throw the book at him.

The best way to look at it is to compare it with your own prohibition of alcohol. It was supposed to be illegal but nobody took that seriously. Everyone was drinking away as usual. Some academics from time to time would talk about how great it was to be a non-drinking nation, and millions of people would chortle and scoff at him. So sure, the guns are banned down under, and academics like to talk about how there are no guns. Look at the thousands of gun shops around Australia. How do they make money if there are no guns?

Me, I got rid of my own rifle way back in 1983 when my brother in law almost shot me with it. He was inspecting it, and stupidly pointed it in my direction, then accidently pulled the trigger. The bullet shaved my jacket. Now if I had been more of a gun nut I would have kept it, and ignored the gun hand in, in which case I’d still have it. There was never any search of people’s properties or anything like that – those are Tucker’s wild dreams in action. He’s a nice guy, but sheesh, what an imagination.
Click to expand...

So what type of guns is it legal to possess?
 
Fletch said:
So what type of guns is it legal to possess?
Click to expand...

Many, but you have to put up with a lot more paperwork than most Americans. If it can kill a lot of people quickly it will probably be banned. Here’s an article in Huffington Post titled ‘Australia's Gun Laws Aren't As Tough As You Think, And Standards Are Slipping’:

Australia's Gun Laws Aren't As Tough As You Think, And Standards Are Slipping

Quote:

"Every jurisdiction has slipped backwards by varying degrees. NSW is the most obvious example of compliance 'slippage'."

New South Wales, the report said, has permitted silencers, extended the availability of semi-automatic weapons, and has eased restrictions around licensing.

The NFA sets out conditions such as that automatic or semi-automatic longarms would only be allowed for use by military, police or occupational shooters (such as for pest control), that all firearms would be severely restricted for use to only those with a 'genuine reason' to own them, and that gun licence applicants need be aged over 18 and undergo adequate safety training.

However, the report outlines that "every State and Territory allows minors to possess and use firearms," with licencing ages ranging from 10 to 16 years, while some jurisdictions allow people to be trained in firearm use without holding a licence.

The report claimed that "non-compliance from day one, and two decades of political pressure, have steadily reduced restrictions and undermined the NFA's original intent."​
​

From another site:

A spokeswoman for the Australian Institute of Criminology told SBS a person looking to own a firearm in this country needs both a licence and a permit. To obtain a licence, they must be:

* 18 years or over
* Judged as a fit and proper person
* Have undergone a firearms safety training course and;
* Have provided documentation about the storage arrangements in which they will secure the firearm.

Licences will not be granted to people:

* Under the age of 18
* Who have been convicted in the previous 10 years in the current or another state/territory of an offence prescribed by the regulations
* Is subject to an apprehended violence order or at any time in the previous 10 years has been subject to an order (unless the order was revoked), or;
* Is subject to a Good Behaviour Bond to an offence prescribed by the regulations

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/how-easy-is-it-to-get-a-gun-in-australia

Essentially what you have is a lot more red tape, but plenty of Aussies are using guns, and plenty of others simply ignored the original ban.
 
Once again Tucker Carlson has been telling Fake News about Australia.

https://youtu.be/52wsY9d8BgY

This time he says, "Australia, a country that confiscated its citizens' guns, by the hundreds of thousands," a number of times throughout the interview. Instead of pointing out that only a certain type of assault rifle and other crowd killers were made illegal, and people handed them in voluntarily (not all), he makes it sound like armies of SS soldiers marched from house to house, ripping ALL guns from peoples' hands.

What a hard on he has for gun hysteria.

He says, of Australia, "...that got rid of gun violence by getting rid of guns..."

The other guy says, "First of all Australia did not get rid of guns, there are still a lot of guns in Australia..."

You bet there are a lot of guns here.

Tucker says, of Australia, "...like taking them away by force, from the population," and he is wrong about this too. They asked people to hand in their guns. No cops forced the guns off people. Many people kept their guns, and there were no mass raids or anything like it.

Hysterics. Basically Tucker has confused Australia with Stalinist Russia.

The basic result in Australia is that real gun enthusiasts still get to have guns. Only the murderbrats find themselves in a situation where there are no guns. Which is exactly what you want over there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom